Talk:Ethnomethodology

Useful information: Durkheims Aphorism comes from: The Rules of Sociological Method, ed. Steven Lukes (New York, Free Press 1895), S.45): "Very often the disagreements were due to the refusal to admit at all, or to admit with reservations, our basic principle, that of the objective reality of social facts. It is therefore upon this principle that in the end everything rests, and everything comes back to." - via an ethnomethodological mailing list. --Vintagesound 10:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine description of ethnomethodolgy

As an early fan of ethnomethodology (without credentials), I found this to be a well-written description of the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.207.7 (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC) You don't need credentails to be an ethnomethodologist.

---

CITATIONS NEEDED?

This article has far more citations than the Wikipedia entries for "Symbolic Interactionism", "Structural Functionalism", and/or "Social Psychology" - yet only Structural Functionalism has a red flag; that article contains no in-line citations or pagination. The latter half of the entry for "Sociology" dealing with modern versions of Sociology has only one citation. THIS ARTICLE NOW CONTAINS 46 CITATIONS. We would humbly submit that this is now the best documented site on Wikipedia dealing with the social sciences.

The above statement is quite accurate, and I have removed the 'citations missing' template. In future, when you see that an article contains an inappropriate template, you can always remove it yourself. Terraxos (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

However the citations are very confusing. What format is this? (Author:Year)? (Not Chicago, APA, or AAA) And why, when Garfinkel and Rawls is being cited, is the ref to Garflinkel:2002, which is co-authored? --Reagle (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

ASA (Author:Year:Page). To the best of my knowledge, the Rawls bits are authored by Rawls, as appearing in Garfinkel. The text is credited to Garfinkel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 02:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are there references to this Anne Rawls person? They have no place, and she was not the author of the quotes in any case. It just seems like self-publicising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.55.178 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Ann Rawls is the editor of Garfinkel's latest programmatic text, Ethnomethodology's Program [2002], and wrote the substantial introduction to this text. In the introduction, she summarizes both the evolution of ethnomethodology as a tradition, and summarizes key conceptual points in doctrine. As she shares the same binding as Garfinkel, one must assume that they are very close in their understanding of the discipline. As such, she is referred to below as an "official interpreter". I for one can attest that she understands what she is talking about and writes very clearly. Those new to the discipline would be foolish to ignore her witings in this area as you are unlikely to find a source with more authority, and who writes with the same clarity. For the record, I have never met her, and have no relationship whatsoever with her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.46 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WHY IS ETHNOMETHODOLOGY SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?

There are a number of reasons why ethnomethodology is so difficult to understand: [1] there is no unified ethnomethodological theory; [2] there is no agreed upon ethnomethodological method; [3] there are no independent criteria, other than that of authority, for the evaluation of ethnomethodological studies; [4] Garfinkel's writings are generally impenetrable for the student as they have now become so complex in terms of references that reading all of the sources referenced has becomes increasingly unrealistic; [5] Garfinkel's writings are generally impenetrable for the professional sociologist as they are counterintuitive relative to his/her training; [6] Garfinkel's writings are inconsistent in their use of terminology and formulation; [7] Garfinkel's writing style is completely idiosyncratic and convoluted to the point of being occaisionally incoherent - despite his adherents defense, there is really no excuse for this type of prose style; [8] references are made to authors who are generally outside of the general mainstream of sociology; [9] references to outside authors in philosophy are not to their systems, but to fragments of their systems, resulting in confusion as to how far ethnomethodology's use of these authors ideas extends to the rest of their theoretical systems; [10] ethnomethodologists rarely, if ever, provide critical commentary on Garfinkel's writings in fear of earning his displeasure and being deleted from the periodic lists of "approved" ethnomethodologists appearing in his texts; [11] ethnomethodology as a policy eschews discussion of theory, and hence any discussion of theoretical foundations; [12] ethnomethodology denies that it has a methodology of its own, thus avoiding having to work out a methodology of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 14:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)````

ethno-method-o-logy

Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that the three roots are ethnos, methodos and logos? I am not really sure about this, but if this is the case, than it would make more sense the split the word into the three parts ethno-methodo-logy. Wouldn’t it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozean (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethno-method-ology. Trying to keep it in simple, colloquial English. If you must change it go with your second formulation. My concern is the misleading implications of the "logy" part - look it up in an English dictionary before you change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.221.218 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Problem of Order"

What is the "Problem of Order", and exactly whose problem is it? Locate the class origins of this question and you have located the essence of traditional, mainstream sociology. Thomas Hobbes, from whom the concept emanates, was a Royalist during the English Revolution [17th cent.], fled England after Charles I was beheaded, and returned to England as a supporter of Charles II after the restoration of the monarchy.

Hobbes was by no stretch of the imagination a social democrat. His major interest, like the other social contract theorists of the time [Locke, etc.], was to provide a "secular" rationalization for maintaing the established power relationships [social order] of the time - and his place in that social order.

The problem of order in modern sociology [Parsons and his derivitives] manifests itself in the discipline's obsession with mechanism of social engineering: conformity, social control, and deviance. Even questions of social integration [racial, ethnic, class] are framed from the perspective of legitimizing the existing social order, not changing it.

Garfinkel's writing style: "Ethnomethodologist's tend..."

The question is: how do you know this? Did you do a survey of all ethnomethodologists? I would suggest that in the absence of any supporting data to support this formulation, you revert to the original sentence construction.

Please do not delete the comments of others on the talk page. For talk page policy see: Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. In a case like this (where the comment has been addressed and the entry seems to be not necessary anymore), you might just want to reply to the comment with a comment of your own, e.g. something like “This has been addressed in today’s revision.” This would make the history of this article easier to understand.

In addition to this comment about talk page policy in general, I would also like to reformulate the original writer’s comment and generalize it to apply it to the whole article: I think the edits made by the two/three anonymous IPs (161.185.xxx.xxx, 68.198.221.218 and the “late” ASchutz) are really enhancing the quality of this article. I am deeply impressed by the amount of work that you invest for this article. However, the style of the article often seems strange for an encyclopedia. Formulations like the above “Ethnomethodologist's tend”, or others like “We use these authors rather than Garfinkel”, “Note that…” suggest some (authoritative, insider) person lecturing/teaching those who read the article. I think it would enhance the quality of the article if these kinds of statements could be evaded/changed. If I read the entry like it is now, it sounds more like an article for a journal, written by some ominous insider figure that claims particularly close insight into the workings and relations of those who do EM. I do not want to interrupt your work on the article, therefore I did not make any edits – in particular because there seems to be a team at work here. Since this team is so productive, I don't want to break the workflow.

The article has been enriched by many helpful citations – however, on some critical statements (critical because they express judgements), no source or (that would be the alternative) reason is given. An outstanding example is “Garfinkel's writing style has been described by some as abstruse, convoluted, and obscure in terms of both meaning and reference. Others have maintained that it is adequate to the task at hand, and unavoidable given the phenomena being described. Some maintain that it has gotten better over time, others maintain that it has gotten worse. Most have given up such arguments and accepted it for what it is.” I agree with the statement and I find the conclusion quite witty and entertaining, but I also find this problematic because it differs so greatly from what is the commonly accepted style of wikipedia. (And as ethnomethodologists we all know about member’s rules…)

Finally, I want say once more that this comment is intended as sympathetic feedback for the two anonymous editors and User:ASchutz. By the way: I sometimes have a hard time keeping in mind which number/person does what kind of edits - why don’t you register an account [1] at the wikipedia and use it to submit you edits? That would make keeping track for all involved much easier! --ozean (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This subsection is not really very helpful. The point of the article is to provide a concise and non-technical description of the topic. Some of Garfinkel's writings can be challenging, but the same can be said of many social theorists and philosophers. It is not the case that there are no accessible sources on EM. The only purpose this subsection has is to discourage new readers to explore the topic further. Our purpose is to enlighten readers as to what EM is, not to drive them away. It might also be noted that Garfinkel has no "officially designated interpreters." Pracktiker (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________ I would suggest that Ann Rawls, as Garfinkel's editor for his 2002 program statement, Ethnomethodology's Program, functions[de facto]as his "officially designated interpreter" - otherwise she would not have been chosen as his editor [by him]. Likewise John Heritage, his colleague at UCLA for many years, also functions in this role - one does not usually add faculty personnel to a Department where the originator of a discipline teaches [and has veto power], if that person has significant differences with the disciplines originator - who sits on the selection committee. The point of the section is/was to provide reliable "translators" for Garfinkel's often obscure and obfuscatory writings. They both write better than Garfinkel, and most, if not all, of his other commentators. Larry Weider was also an unusually straightforward writer who actually co-authored articles with Garfinkel - as well as being one of Garfinkel's actual students. There are many ethnomethodological commentators who don't know what they are talking about, or function as mere parrot's of Garfinkelean phraseology. The persons who appeared in this section understood what they were talking about, and had the gift to communicate it clearly. This is of value to new readers. I am not advocating that the section be reinstated as I have made the same point here. _____________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.46 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. ozean (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

>The item was removed because with the reversion to the original formulation, the "correction" no longer had a context and was thus rendered meaningless to new readers. We did leave the original, and the proposed reversion up for a while prior to it's removal, but no one commented in what we thought was a timely manner. Note that this site is often subject to the pillaging of [apparently] drunken sociology students who make incoherent "corrections" and then disappear never to be heard from again. A sort of drive-by shooting of the text, if you will.

Format: One of the inherent problems with the Wikipedia format is that articles grow organically. Once they are started they have a structural life of their own. They are necessarily a pastiche. After they reach a certain size, they are uncorrectable as to structural format. So is the case with this one. We have no intention of reorganizing it at this stage in the game.

Contributions: If you want to contibute to the article, we do need a review of some of the more recent important studies [no CA please - they have their own website]. There is continuous reference in the literature to "studies" and "findings", but most appear as merely rumors for those who do not have access to apparently scarce, or hideously expensive, publications. How about a greatest hits package detailing the top five to ten studies? This would be helpful. After section #8 would appear to be the logical place for such an entry.

The Goal: The goal of this article is to be straightforward, accessible [as possible], and transparent to the novice - we have no interest in mystifying those new to the discipline or adding to the ethno-mytholoy of the discipline. As stated previously, there is very little critical commentary appearing in this literature, we do add some where we feel it is necessary. We believe that these "editorial comments" are fact based, fair, and meet the ultimate criteria of common sense. If you have objections to anything you see, raise it as an issue.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 

Ethnomethodology's Interest [Social Orders]: A Certain Parallel with Heideggerian Phenomenology

Social order of [surfing] = ways of [surfing] = "ways of being".

"...we shall speak of the constitution of Dasein and always mean by it "in its way to be"." [Martin Heidegger:1992:155]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Heidegger's position [Being and Time:G1927/E1962]: "Dasein's facticity consists of the determinations of its way of being-in-the-world" [William Blattner:2006:45]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"What is to be determined is not an outward appearance of this entity (Dasein) but from the outset and throughout solely its way to be, not the what of that of which it is composed, but the how of its being and the character of this how [Martin Heidegger:1992:154].

In Being and Time, "Heidegger...claims to be doing a sort of hermeneutic (interpretation) that lays the basis for all other hermeneutics (interpretations) by showing that human beings are a set of meaningful social practices, and how these practices give rise to intelligibility, and themselves can be made intelligible" [Hubert Dreyfus:1991:34].

For Heidegger, "...Dasein is its praxis" [Theodore Kisiel:1993:304].

"To determine the worldhood ("character of the being of Dasein") of the world is to lay open in its structure, the how of the encounter" [Martin Heidegger:1992:169). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

All Heidegger citations are from, "The History of the Concept of Time" [G1979/E1992]. This text is considered to be a rough/draft version of, "Being and Time" [G1927/E1962], covering many of the same topics, and more accessible to the non-specialist [its easier to read]. It was developed out of Heidegger's lecture notes: Summer Course 1925. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.187 (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Coulon reversion"

I reverted this to the original as this sentence deals with the definition of the discipline- not someones belief regarding its historical function. The assertion that ethnomethodology replaces sociology would be disputed by a very large number of sociologiists at a very large number of universities accross the planet. It is empirically indefensible. Also, Garfinkel has nerver made such an assertion and has, in fact, stated as a matter of doctrine, that ethnomethodology specifically does not seek to replace traditional sociology, or offer remedies for any of its practices. If you would like to offer an actual proof for your assertion, I am all ears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 04:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want proof buy the book as I did. You can't call something which challenges the fundamental principles of sociology, sociological. I provided a citation for a statement taken from the book of the same name as this article. You can't provide a citation for your claim. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What a totally fatuous response [buy a book, the citation itself trumps the truth value of the claim].

The objection is to the statement as a summary definition, or descriptor, of Ethnomethodoloogy in this particular location. The first part of the statement is false and easily disproven by a little empirical investigation; the second part is a purely rhetorical assertion that cannot be substantiated. It is hard to earn readers when the opening statement to an article is both false and incapable of being substantiated. Unless, of course, your intent is to sabotage the article. You do sabotage the paragraph.

Tell me Jonathan: is the fact that the first part of the statement cited is untrue - by any standard of basic common sense - trumped by the fact that this untrue statement appears in a citation? The statement that Ethnomethodology is the successor of, and/or has replaced, American sociology is patently absurd. It is not justified by the reality on the ground.

A "radical breach" of the principles of traditional modes of sociological reasoning would require some generally agreed upon statement of these principles, and a definition of what a breach would consist of - let alone what a "radical breach" would consist of. This type of statement is rhetorically empty.

I have noticed in your bio that you have no expertise in this area, ether by training or actual experience. I would suggest that you show some good faith by reverting to the original yourself. How would you feel if we [there are three of us] went to your Wikipedia site and started mucking around.

If you can't make a substantive contribution to the article, you should leave it alone. Go play somewhere else.

My shelves are filled.

Actually I am a professional researcher who has been trained in research methods to doctoral level. I am currently using ethnomethodology in practice and have used the sociological model of classifying things based on the worldview of the researcher in a previous published study. The reason I chose ethnomethodology for my current study is that it is an inductive method that draws the classifications from the groups being investigated rather than imposing them on the group as sociologists do. You are attempting to misrepresent ethnomethodology beyond its actuality as an inductive data analysis method that replaces the deductive sociological one. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So you claim. The issue is that the statement (Coulon) that you have entered on the page is clearly false. I repeat for the third time: ethnomethodology is not the successor to American sociology. It has not replaced American sociology. What verification criteria would you use to approve or disprove the statement that Coulon has made? Clearly the statement must be testable as to its truth value?

We will discuss the above after we have resolved the issue of the Coulon citation. This is a disputational argument: you have made a claim, back it up or eliminate the citation. We can get to your objection with my interpretation of ethnomethodology after we resolve this one.````By the way, ethnomethodology is not an "inductive data analysis method", and there is nowhere in the article, or on this discussion page, where I use the words inductive or deductive to characterize ethnomethodology. You are making stuff up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.188 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have amended the article to descibe it as an alternative to the sociological approach as opposed to something which surpasses sociology. Hopefully you will accept this, as Enthnomethodology seeks to provide an alternative way of looking at the same data based on the ways the groups studied do things as opposed to the way the researcher sees that they do things as in sociology. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is no good. Ethnomethodology is not an alternative approach to "data analysis" - you state this [literally]. It is not a form of "data analysis" at all - alternative or not.

There is no "American approach" to data analysis, there are various sociological approaches to data analysis depending on the methodology that one is using. The fact that some of these approaches are derived from American sociology does not mean that they are "American approaches", they are scientific approaches to the study of social phenomenon, which happen to have been formulatd by American sociologists.

Also, you made a statement citing Coulon, now you are modifying this statement to something else. This indicates that the original statement is not from Coulon, or that this is your - quite flexible - interpretation of something you read in Coulon.

Your use of English is very imprecise. You appear to interpret everything from a fractured formal Analytic perspective. Ethnomethodology cannot be accurately characterized from a formal Analytic perspective. You do this again with your, "In essence", tag on. Ethnomethodology is specifically not interested in developing formal Analytic categories of specific types of social activities. It is interested in the description of social orders. The fact that you are interested in this activity, and you mis-understand ethnomethodology to share your interests, does not make it so.

ASchutz (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting to the original. It is not incumbent upon any of us to have to defend a perfectly useful characterization of ethnomethodology written in perfectly coherent, grammatcally correct English, from someone who does not appear to have any expertise in the area and has problematic English language, and/or conceptual skills.

As previously stated, I have reviewed your bio - I stand by the statement appearing above. Based on your "contributions", I do not think that you have any expertise in this area. You haven't demonstrated any understanding of the area. Your statements indicate that you are having trouble conceptualizing the area, let alone commenting on it.

original research

Note: the allegation that this article represents "Original Research" was picked up from a prior discussion concerning "Garfinkel's Writing Style". Jonathan Bishop did not participate in that discussion. Also note, that even though he claims that the article is "Original Research", he does not specify which parts he is referring to. As some of the entries on the page are his [noted below], he certainly cannot be claiming that the entire article is "Original Reseach". As this article has already been noted as the most well documented site in the social sciences on Wikipedia, if this is "Original Research", what are all of the other sites, which lack adequate, or any, citations?

Back to the narrative: —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, your "contributions" so far have consisted of latching on to other proples writings and inserting, or appending, single sentence tag lines [all conceptually incorrect, two of the three gramatically incorrect]. What you are actually doing is attempting to make other peoples work your own.

That's two rules you've broken. I simply refer you to WP:Verify and WP:OR and say that I am following the rules of Wikipedia by not producing original research as you are doing. I will be restoring my citation, which complies with WP:Verify and removing yours which falls within AP:OR. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, you need to disappear. Stick to IT. You don't need ethnomethdology to justify your work, and ethnomethodology does not need you - certainly this page doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote both of those original entries, and the revisions. Now you are back to defending a statement that I have told you is false, is provable as false, and you modified in order to make acceptable - but failed.

That's a third rule you've broken. Please see WP:OWN. If you want to experiment, please use WP:Sandbox --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are a very disturbed individual whose goal is appearently to sabotage this site. You are an intellectual fraud, and lacking in common sense. You cannot just go to sites and make entries about things which you know nothing about [you list yourself as a wannabe "business major"]. Just because you can quote Coulon (out of context) and place the quote in an article (out of context) does not mean that you are competent in this area.

Have you no shame: why would you want to be called out on two sites as a fraud with your name attached to your entries, which are clearly both erroneous and do not even represent an original contribution.

If this is not reverted by Monday, I will contact a referee. If you want to be the laughing stock of both the social science and IT communities who use these sites, be my guest. Developing this type of reputation will not contribute to your "career" - except as a possible mental patient (A reference to Goffman, he was a sociologist - you are not). ASchutz (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC).

I have noted the statements of Jonathan Bishop appearing in the article in bold, and within brackets. Jonathan, you need to recognize your limitations - perhaps you are destined to merely sell stuff for a living, or perhaps you already understand that this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 03:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: He has since taken the bold off of his comments.

I obey the policies of the site. It is you that is attempting to sabotage it with your original research and unverified claims. With your statments above you are breaking two further rules: WP:Civility and WP:AGF. I suggest you use WP:Sandbox if you want to experiment. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I still find your motivations suspect. The fact that you are fluent in Wiki format does not mean that your characterizations of ethnomethodology hold water. If you want, I will address your "original research" complaint after we have resolved your text contributions. The fact that this complaint reflects OSEAN's comment appering above and is not original to you is noted. I still think that you are playing a dangerous game: pretending to be an authority while only possessing a technical skill. ASchutz (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Page re-organisation

I have now re-organised the article and changed the references into Wikipedia's format. I have found references for some claims you made, but not all. I have also added other references. Like I said I am a professional researcher, I use many books to find answers to questions - you appear only to use one or two! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the "Vartieties" section [a holdover from long ago], and your two sentences, I am the author/editor of this site. There are two other authors who work through me.

Again, I think you should read WP:OWN and also WP:Sockpuppet. I've lost count of the number of rules you've broken. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a work in progress. I am indifferent as to your format changes. If you say that the organization of the site now meets Wiki standards, I'll take your word for it. I don't particularly like your reorganization of the paragraphs, but that is a matter of opinion, I am interested in substance. As this constituted a lot of work on your part, and does not affect anything substantively, I'll go along with it.

We use primary sources: Garfinkel and his designated interpreters. Garfinkel is the primary source, Heritage (UCLA co-worker) and Rawls (his editor) are his officially designated interpreters, Wieder was a student of Garfinkel and co-authored a number of articles with him (he has thus been officially certified). Maynard is from UCSB (Wieder/Zimmerman) and Clayman is from UCLA (Garfinkel). The use of such core authors reduces the probabillity of errors being introduced into the dialog.

Not all of the commentators on this material are of equal value. Some have been known to engage in hyperbolic characterizations ("radical breach, etc."). In general, hyperbole should be avoided in academic research - although some apparently would disagree. The point of writing an article is to be accurate, not who can introduce the most citations into the article.

In matters of substance: Your opening quote is still in error. Your other entry regarding "In essense" now works slightly better in its third revision - but is redundant and, in essence, adds nothing to the paragraph. Your Coulon biblio entry needs to be put in alpha order. You have grammar problems, If you continue to maintain that "your" statements are substantively correct, I will bring in the Ref. --ASchutz (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

>>Jonathan: You are a busy little beaver. I now count seven changes in the text.

Let go through them:

[1] Coulon: I have already pointed out that this is an error. It remains so. In addition, the latter part of the sentence contradicts the sentence following it. Did you actually read the text before you started altering it? ERROR #1.

[2] Sentence ending with citation #5: "As a method...". Rawls states that ethnomethodology itself is not a method. Here you state that it is. It can't be both. I would submit that Rawls, as Garfinkel's editor, trumps Randall Collins. This is the problem with your "research method", you are operating out of quotes, and not an understanding of the field. ERROR # 2.

[3] Introduction: You change my statement from, "...the term itself can be broken down...", to, "the terms etymology can be broken down...". The example that I use is not an example of the term "etymology", it is a division of convenience for the purposes of giving a clear(er) understanding of the field. This is yet another example of you changing something for the sake of changing it [taking possession - you are creepy]. This time you falsify a perfectly good characterization. I would suggest that you stole this from OSEAN above (you have stolen from him before). If so, you did not understand what he was talking about. ERROR # 3.

[4] Introduction: sentence ending with citation #5: "In essence...", my you do like to latch onto other peoples thoughts. First part of this sentence is in error. Ethnomethodology does not attempt to create classifications of the social actions within groups. Ethnomethodology is a descriptive discipline where descriptions are not generalizable between settings. It does not attempt to classify anything, it attempts to describe social orders. It says so repeatedly in Garfinkel (2002). You might want to read the text instead of backing into it via quotes. ERROR # 4.

[5] Ethnomethodology's origins: You change my sentence from, "The approach was developed..., to, "the approach was riginally [sic] developed". Besides the spelling error, the adding of the word "[o]riginally" is redundant, as in unnecessary. I hope that this was a typo. BAD DECISION.

[6] "Differences between...": You change the title removing the word "traditional". This meaningless act probably stems from your prior contention that ethnomethodology is not a form of sociology. I don't agree. I don't think that most people would agree. I don't think that Garfinkel would agree. Garfinkel taught in the Department of Sociology, he did not teach in the Department of Ethnomethodology. To the best of my knowledge, there are no Departments of Ethnomethodology - anywhere on the planet. A trivial and unnecessary distinction on your part. ERROR # 5.

[7] "Difference between...": Sentence ending in citation #20: Why? This is a silly analogy. How does such a sentence help anyone reading this article understand ethnomethodology? What purpose does it serve. It has already been established in the text that ethnomethodology is distinct from traditional sociology. Again, you should not just take quotes from others and insert them into texts out of context. BAD DECISION.

Well that sums up your "contributions" to the text, so far. Other than putting this article into Wiki format, your contributions are trivial to misleading to downright erroneous. You are batting 5 for 5 in terms of posting misinformation. You version of "reseach" is appalling. ASchutz (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Tar Baby" has suggested the following for the opening.

Ethnomethodology is the study of the methods people use for producing recognizable social orders (Garfinkel:2002:6). Its focus is on the embodied and observable practices employed by groups of people for the local, in situ, production of these social orders - as such, it is specifically not to be conceived of as yet another sociological discipline which seeks to map the cognitive or conceptual structure of a group's particular social reality (Garfinkel:2002:7). Coulon has put forth the proposition that the theoretical and epistemological importance of ethnomethodology consists of this type of "radical breach" with traditional modes of sociological thinking (Coulon:1995:1).ASchutz (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

After your long rant, I conclude that the text of your conclusion would confuse the average person by not telling them what ethnomethodology is. Talk of 'embodied' practices, 'social orders' and 'social reality' require an indepth understanding of the social science field, which are alien to people outside the arena. Its fine to have an ontology but you need to be aware that unless its defined people won't understand it.

On one of you substantives you state "you should not just take quotes from others and insert them into texts". Yes you should, thats how writing Wikipedia works - You find statements of fact, place them in an article and provide the citation for them. It is bad practice as you do to cite one source and even worse as you do to provide statements of fact and arguments without sources to verify them. That is original research, with Wikipedia you have use external and reliable sources to verify statements of fact. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

>> You rejected the original opening sentence because it had no footnotes, then you reject the "compromise" because you state that it is too complicated for the average reader to understand [yourself perhaps?]. Please note that every sentence in the "compromise" is footnoted. None of these statements reflect my "ontology", they are the statements of Garfinkel's editor and reflect his definition of a field in which he is the authority - you most certainly are not. Your solution here is to continue to maintain that your opening sentence - which is false - reflects the authors true characterization of his own work. To make it explicit for you: the first part of your opening sentence neither reflects the doctrines of Garfinkel, or the work of Coulon. What about the contradiction of the first sentence [yours] with the second sentence?ASchutz (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnomethodology has changed since Garfinkel first described it. Like with all methods for analysing research phenomena, as they are used they take on new forms and purposes. By citing only one source, and adding your own understandings of that source you are merely presenting this article as a book review and not an attempt to capture the state of play in the field. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

>>Interesting change in tactics. This article has never maintained itself as anything other than an article on Harold Garfinkel's Ethnomethodology. Until he is put underground, it is his discipline to define. The most cited text that we use is his programmatic statement of 2002: "Ethnomethodology's Program". This is not exactly out-of-date. [Incidently, now you are implying that you understand ethnomethodology in all of its forms - this is even more ridiculous than the positing that you understand Garfinkel's original statement of the discipline.]. If you are going to update his work to meet your new definition of the discipline, what sources are you going to use? You are still ignoring the substantive issues appearing in items 1-7 above.ASchutz (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

>>Here's a compromise. Why don't you get out of our article and start your own on "The New Ethnomethodology". We'll even let you remove you seven sentences and take them with you to the new location of your choice. Garfinkel's biographical site is also up for grabs - why don't you take it over and go through the history of the discipline, including its modern variations. As an alternative, you can have your very own section of this article, where every fact and statment can be sourced to you without having to butt heads with us. As long as you label it as yours, we have no objection. I would in fact look forward to it. Why would you want your insights and knowledge lumped together with dinosaurs like us, when you can have your own site or section where you can demonstrate your expertise in the field, as well as your highly developed professional research skills. Go for it Big Guy. ASchutz (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There you go and break two more rules as well as continue to break another one. See WP:SOAPS, WP:HAR and WP:OWN. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for one particular point of point of view, and those with different views to editors should not harass those editors nor take ownership of articles. If you want to experiment please use WP:Sandbox and familiarise yourself with the rules I have pointed you to in this discussion before continuing. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

>>I'm starting to really like this. It is now out of the surreal and moving toward "da-da". You are in charge. I especially like the part about the pedestrian walkway. Make sure to snuff out all of the text which has no citations.ASchutz (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, we all share the desire to contribute to this article as well as the perspective that it is incomplete and needs work. AShutz, your use of primary texts and reference to them is appreciated. I think it's also beneficial to include how Ethnomethodology is understood by other prominent sociologists, like Collins. Perhaps that can be a satisfactory compromise. best, Mike Restivo (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing disputes & quality of this article

Since things seem to be getting worse, I feel the need for getting things back into shape. First, I have to insist that I find the tone of ASchutz’s comments here very inappropriate. I did not feel compelled to support some of ASchutz’s claims because of this inadequacy of manner. Since the wikipedia – in contrast to other formats – relies on productive collaboration, this is not only an important but a necessary ingredient of good articles. (This is not necessarily true for other ways of publication, but experience tells us it is if you want to sustain a reasonably good quality in an article with more than one or two contributors.) However, my impression is that the contributions of ASchutz and anonymous IPs have over the course of the last few months vastly improved this article. To be precise: the content of the edits is in what appears to me to be the “true” spirit of ethnomethodology – if there is such a thing. At the same time, I felt a bit uneasy about the edits (as I stated earlier on this page), because the style of the edits is not really according to what many people here will perceive as being adequate for the wikipedia: some very authoritative statements are given without a reference by some unknown “we”-collective. Because of that, it can be argued that this article presents “original research”, not a collection of data from outside the wikipedia. In a way, I guess this critique is justified. But, now that I have seen some of the edits that have recently been made by Jonathanbishop, the opposite has happened: we have referenced statements from different kinds of articles, overview chapters etc. spanning several decades. Do these references give a better account of what EM is about? I do not think this is the case when one looks at some of the more important edits (for example the much contested introductory sentences).
I think we’re in a difficult situation here. ASchutz has raised the level of emotional involvement to such a degree that I guess reasonable discussion and compromises are difficult to attain. Jonathanbishop has to be praised for keeping away from derogatory statements. At the same time, I can see how his style of using technicalities and keeping to formal codes gives his position formal power that might not be adequate to the power of arguments relating to EM.
My proposition is probably not at all unexpected: cut yourselves some slack, take a step back, look at each other’s arguments blablabla. And for ASchutz (and anonymous IPs), whose understanding of EM is impressive to me: I would be much happier if we can find a different tone for the talk page!
I guess I will, in the course of the next few days, try to make a suggestion for the opening lines which we can discuss here on the talk page before changing it in the article. In addition, I would approve of reworking the section “Differences between sociology and ethnomethodology” a bit so that it reflects the differences in how EM is placed with regard to sociology more clearly. I find it rather obvious that (a) some sociologists will think EM has nothing to do with “real” sociology, (b) some EM-proponents will think that what they do is what sociology really is about, (c) that many people think that EM is just one of many, many, many different approaches (with regards to both theory and methods) in sociology, (d) that some people will think EM is some strange variation of ethnography, (e) that EM is just a set of sociological methods like many others (probably on the same level as participant observation or something similar), (f) (g) … and so on and so forth – all of these might have stated their understanding of EM in scholarly articles, some of which might be published in established journals. For the readers of this article, it would be helpful to point out who says what (i.e. what is the position of Garfinkel as opposed to the position of X, what is a judgement that has been made in some strange kind of context of the 70ies (what are “moral sociologists”?)).
The important thing is: not to suggest a unity where there is none. If we, along with other authors do not agree that EM is an “alternative” to sociology then this difference/particularity should be expressed in the article. For the short introductory statements, however, we should try to find a real consensus that gives an accurate yet general enough description to those who don’t know anything about EM and come here to find out more. --ozean (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputes with cited claims in this Article

All of these items deal with claims introduced into the article by Jonathan Bishop: —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 02:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[1] Ethnomethodology is not an alternative to the "American sociological approach to data analysis".

[2] Ethnomethodology is not a form of "data analysis" at all, conventional or unconventional.

[3] Ethnomethodology was not "born in the 1960s". It was born with the conceptual formation of the term in 1954 (as cited).

[4] The question as to whether ethnomethodology is a "radical breach" from traditional sociological modes of thinking is rhetorically empty. A factual determination of this statement would require both an actual definition of the commonalities constituting "traditional sociological modes of thinking", and what a "radical breach" of such commonalities would consist of. Neither is offered with the assertion, or in the text cited as making the assertion.

[5] The claim that the "discipline itself has changed from Garfinkel's original program to the point where it is no longer recognisable (sic)" is in error. It is clearly recognizable to those who have read and understood Garfinkel's programmatic statements of 1967 & 2002. The fact that persons use the term with no understanding of the discipline is unfortunate, but does not make the discipline itself unrecognizable - it only shows that these individuals do not understand what ethnomethodology is about.

[6] Ethnomethodology has been described by Rawls, speaking for Garfinkel, as not being a method (fn. #18). Bishop's citation (fn. #6) states that it is a method. It cannot both be, and not be, a method. I would suggest that Rawls, as Garfinkel's editor, trumps Collins as to all factual characterization of ethnomethodology.

[7] The use of the term "etymology" in the "Introduction" is incorrect. This passage is not an example of an etymological definition of ethnomethodology.

[8] The characterization of ethnomethodology as an attempt "to create classifications of the social actions of individuals within groups" is in error. Ethnomethodology does not attempt to create classifications of social action. It is the descriptive study of social orders.

[9] The statement that ethnomethodology is interested in the "experience of groups" is in error. Ethnomethodology is interested in the description of the social practices (social orders) of groups. It has no interest in the "experiences", or subjective states, of these groups, or particular members of these groups.

[10] It is the author's position that ethnomethodology is a form of sociological inquiry. Bishop's position is that it is not a form of sociological inquiry.

I would posit that due to its core interest - describing social orders - it is a form of sociological inquiry. I would also point out that that its fundamental concern with the "problem of order" firmly locates it in the sociological tradition. It may differ programmatically from traditional sociology, but it affirms this defining criterion of the sociological tradition.

[11] The characterization of ethnomethodology as adopting a "common sense attitude toward knowledge" is both vague and misleading. It may be interested in common sense reasoning, but it is itself, neither in conceptualization, or practice, a common sense approach to social knowledge.ASchutz (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

All your claims are based on your personal accounts of the few texts you have read. You are not providing any claims in line with WP:Verify. Social orders occur not only in sociology but also anthropology and constructivist literature, where an individual's social constuctions form part of their individual social order. It is social order not societal order. Again calling yourself the author and laying claim to this article you are breaking WP:OWN. I think the literature points to the fact that ethnomethodology is a way of drawing findings about practices of particular groups out of the data collected on them. The purpose may be to describe a society, but it is an inductive approach drawing out the structures from what is observed, unlike sociological methods, which are deductive and impose a structure on that society. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jonathanbishop: some of ASchutz’s comments are backed by citations (3,5,6). Some of the others just apply basic reasoning and thus should not need to be backed up by citations (7,11). Again, you are right in challenging the article ownership issue. But I hope we can leave this issue aside now and concentrate on the content.

To address the issue of social orders: of course social orders are also relevant for other disciplines, but physics are also relevant for molecular biology, chemistry, and many other disciplines. Are you arguing that sociology is a discipline that can be defined as working deductively? That statement is most certainly not true. I feel a bit confused by such a statement. Sociology is an extremely diverse field, and some parts of it are heavily theory driven (and thus could be read as being “deductive”), but all qualitative research, from Ibn Khaldun’s study of nomadic and sedentary cultures, over Engels’ account of the conditions of the working classes, to Durkheims sociology of suicide, to Weber’s thesis on protestantism, to Goffman’s account of the presentation of the self, and a non-countable number of people who employ qualitative methods in all of their forms – they are all using inductive reasoning and they are sociologists. EM takes a more radical position than many other subfields of sociology, and because of that it does make sense to discuss the relation of EM to sociology at large. It also makes sense to discuss the influence that EM and conversation analysis had on fields such as linguistics. But positing sociological methods as deductively imposing structure on societies really is far from accurate. (If you need references for this, you may want to start with an article called “The historical divide – Qualitative and establishment sociology” in the Encyclopedia Britannica, the references provided in social research or practically any contemporary introduction to sociology.) --ozean (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that article in Encyclopeadia Bitannica is important. It states: "The structures are thought to represent true reality as opposed to the artificially constructed concepts that sociologists impose on the subjects they study." Would you not agree that the 'artificially constructed concepts' 'imposed' by sociologists make their studies deductive and are therefore unlike ethnomethodological analyses, which draw structures from the data collected from the accounts of the 'folk' about their 'methods'? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you are right in stressing the distinction between the ethnomethodological approach and other sociological approaches. However, it should be clear that sociology as a discipline does not work deductively – every somewhat recent textbook on social research that I have looked into (admittedly, most of them have been German) talks about the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning and points out how and when they are both applied. In so far, the statement inside the Encyclopedia Britannica is not particularly well-put - a nice opportunity for the wikipedia to be better! EM can be characterized as putting great emphasis on the critique of deductive approaches. Although I don’t think I have encountered the inductive-deductive opposition in ethnomethodological writings - they seem to focus less on these epistemological categories as such and more on the practical implications how to study the methods employed by people in their practices. I think we can agree on the fact that EM challenges some sociological practices and epistemological assumptions that are used by some sociologists (those that I dislike ;) ). This is why I think a strong section that discusses the relation between EM and sociology is really important.

But I still think that positing sociology as a deductive discipline is a misrepresentation of sociology. We should keep a neutral distance to both EM and sociology and locate EM from this distance. Seen from this distance, there is a lot of overlap with a significant part of sociology (in particular, those parts that are interested in qualitative studies, in everyday life, in phenomenology, in embodiment etc.) and at the same time there is a big distance to other parts of sociology (those that are characterized as “imposing theory”, in particular some structuralist, functionalist, and systems theory approaches etc.) The historical perspective is very important here, of course, with the predominance of Parsonian reasoning in post-war US sociology etc. So we have overlap and distancing and this is the reason why there is so much tension between EM as such and sociology as a discipline. Sociology is a discipline that has diversified immensely over the course of the last five decades. There is no such thing as a single “American sociological approach to data analysis”. --ozean (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposition for opening statement

Below, you will find a proposition for the opening statement of this article.

Ethnomethodology is a kind of social research which studies the ways in which people make sense of their world, display this understanding to others, and produce the mutually shared social order in which they live. The term was initially coined by Harold Garfinkel in 1954.

Ethnomethodological research is descriptive and it does not engage in the explanation or evaluation of the particular social order that is the topic of its study. Ethnomethodology has developed from a radical critique of those methodologies for social research that employ deductive reasoning, that take social categories for granted, or that focus on explaining social order from a position that is posited as being privileged when compared to the position of those who participate in the production of social order.

I am pretty sure that we can improve on the formulation here and there. I think that two aspects should be discussed later in the article because they have been challenged here and would make the introductory statement to long and/or confusing (the name ethnomethodology is long and confusing enough, so it would be a good idea to keep the other stuff as brief and lucid as possible):

• “but the discipline itself has changed from Garfinkel's original programme to the point where it is no longer recognisable”. Although I personally don’t think this is true, we are working in the wikipedia, so if User:Jonathanbishop thinks this is relevant we will have to deal with it, because it has a verifiable source and that is the way the English wikipedia works (this is quite different in the German wikipedia). I would suggest to do this in a separate section called something like "Developments of Ethnomethodology since its inception" or something like that – I would think that in this logic of verifiability the Maynard and Clayman article (being published in the second highest ranked sociological journal), the later chapters in "An invitation to ethnomethodology: language, society and social interaction" by Francis & Hester, and, of course, Garfinkel 2002 should be good sources to use with and against the claims of "J.R. Bergmann (2004). Ethnomethodology. In: U. Flick, E. von Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.) A Companion to Qualitative Research; pp.72-81" to provide for a reliable, verifiable and neutral discussion.
• contemporary studies/applications of EM: since I do not see a reason why “Modern application of these principles can best be seen in the "Proactive in Progress" plan for the St Dyfrig's pedestrian subway.” is an adequate representation of contemporary work in EM I think it is best to, once more, use a separate category called something like "Contemporary studies relying on EM" or something like that. There, we could present the varios topics that are being studied under the label EM and we could probably also discuss, why these are actually worthwhile cases (either because they represent orthodox application or significant variations of the EM-theme). Again, the sources given above offer a starting point.
  

I also have difficulty with "Pioneering new approaches in this discipline have originated out of the Trefforest School of Thought, with its focus on applications for public betterment in both the physical and virtual world." I have never heard of the Trefforest School of Thought and it is practically non-existant even in a Google search. Since the "can best be seen" and "pioneering new approaches" are not exactly neutral and since I could not find evidence for their significance, I will delete these from the article. I would ask User:Faruk74 to provide reasons why these are relevant before re-entering these statements. --ozean (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The St. Dyfrig's/Trefforest School of thought stuff is vandalism made by Wiki-stalkers of me, I removed it once before. 'proactive in progress' is based on a quote I gave to the media about a social change project I'm involved with. If it happens again I suggest you immediately remove it and ask the this article be protected and the offending user accounts be suspended. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The opening section strikes me as fragmented and lacking a clear statement of just what the article is about. In the interest of trying to get things moving forward, therefore, I would like to take the bold step of replacing the full section with a simple definition of the topic. If anyone feels that we are losing something important by doing so, we can look for places to graft the removed text later in the article. Pracktiker (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Note regarding the [Bishop] citations appearing in this article

Mr. Bishop's contribution to the citations appearing in this article consists of 10 original citations to 9 authors, 8 of which fall within the period 1974-1996: 1970s [3], 1980s [2], 1990s [3]*. Only one, Bergmann, is after 1996, specifically 2004. None of these original citations is to an original policy statement by Garfinkel, although he does piggy back on one of my citations to a text by Garfinkel - he adds a clause to one of my footnoted sentences.

In the factual disputes documented above, Bishop continues to use citations which pit the founder of the discipline - Harold Garfinkel - against a number of authors who are, in 8 of the 9 cases, only commentators on the works of Harold Garfinkel; Lynch as the author of an original study is the only exception here.

As Garfinkel's last programmatic statement, Ethnomethodology's Program [2002], appears after the works of 8 of the 9 authors used by Bishop, and Bergmann has been ruled out as an authority over the works of Garfinkel [see Ozean above / by extension], under what justification do any of these commentators' statements of ethnomethodological policy override those of the founder of the discipline; especially given the fact that 8 of the 9 commentators could not possibly know of Garfinkel's "forthcoming" 2002 statement at the time that they wrote their texts, and the elaboration and/or modification to ethnomethodological policies and practices made available in this statement.

Bishop may go on about the diversity and unrecognizability of the current discipline relative to Garfinkel's definition of ethnomethodology, but the author's he cites are not relevant sources for such a claim. That is, Garfinkel [2002] trumps all of the cited authors which Bishop has introduced into this article when it comes to issues regarding the current state of ethnomethodology's program. This article is, after all, about the definition of ethnomethodology, not the unrecognizability of ethnomethodology relative to Garfinkel's definition of it. If Bishop wants to deal with the current "diversity" of ethnomethodology, he should do so in a separate section within the article.

• These citations are: [1] Gill [?], [2] Coulon, [3] Attewell, [4] Bergmann, [5] Sharrock, [6] Collins, [7] Lynch, [8] Mehan, [9]Leiter.

Incidently, is Karamjit S. Gill an authority on ethnomethodology? Is this someone who should be cited in the opening sentence of an article on ethnomethodology as a defining figure. The book cited is out-of-print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ASchutz (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For ethnomethodology to be eligible for a page on Wikipedia it needs to be an established discipline. Citing once source as you did (Garfinkel) does not show that it is anymore than one person's concept. Garfinkel may have coined the term 'ethnomethodology', but as I have shown through the citations I have provided it has taken on new meanings and uses beyond what was intended and evolved into a discipline in much the same way psychoanalyis evolved from what was originally put forward by Freud. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been out of town.

Nice try cowboy. We use six [6] Ethno sources: Garfinkel [1967 & 2002], Rawls [2002], Heritage [1991], Maynard & Clayman [1991], and we reference Wieder [1988]. All of those cited are card carrying ethnomethodologists with international reputations - they have actually done ethnomethodological studies. I sincerely doubt that any of the commentators that you use to support your argument about the "new" ethnomethodology would take sides against Garfinkel as the authority for all things ethnomethodological.

Again we ask, who is Gill? The book you cite is out-of-print. I have also noted that he has that Wales connection - this is where you reside is it not. I also note that your citation is suspect.

Although you state that the "new" ethnomethodology [ies] make Garfinkel's definition of the discipline unrecognizable, you do not give a positive definition of what these various "new" definitions of the discipline are. You use sections derived from Garfinkel's definition as presented by us, based on his work, and merely state that the discipline is now unrecognizable, and he is no longer relevant. To support your claim you need to define ethnomethodology in such a way that it it both recognizable to somebody - it isn't to Ozean [as stated above] and our group - and distinct from Garfinkel, so far you have done neither. We ain't buying what your selling.ASchutz (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The "See also" section

I'm proposing that we simply dispense with this section. I see no real connection between EM and "Phronetic Social Science". If there is one, could someone please explain what it is? The relationship between EM and Phenomenological Sociology has, in my opinion, been overplayed in this article. Including this link here only exacerbates the problem. The relationship between EM and CA, on the other hand, needs to be treated much more seriously than simply dropping in a bald link at the end of the article. So, in the interest of trying to make this into a useful page, let's just dispose of this section. Pracktiker (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

> The role of phenomenology in ethnomethodology is a fundamental and defining one. The history of the discipline largely consists of the mining of phenomenological texts for ethnomethodological insights into the problem of social order - Garfinkel virtually acknowledges this in EP [2002]. I opppose the deletion of the "Phenomenology and Ethnomethodology" section.

The link to "Phenomenological Sociology", on the other hand, is not essential to the article, delink it if you want. The link to the other thing [Phronetic Social Science / WTF - and I don't want to see an explanation of such a thing] is far more marginal, and should be deleted.

If you are interested in developing the article, how about a statement on Conversational Analysis - but be advised - CA is not a form of ethnomethodology - it is a separate discipline from which ethnomethodologist's borrow on occasion for examples, but it is not ethnomethodology. Someone will also have to deal with the big qestion: what is a "social order" - the phenomenon of interest for ethnomethodology. < —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.46 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't proposed deleting the "Phenomenology and Ethnomethodology" section, but since you bring it up, let's discuss that. I don't really challenge any of the things that are written there, but I bring your attention to the last sentence, "there is no claim in any of Garfinkel's works that ethnomethodology is a form of phenomenology, or phenomenological sociology". (Someone has demanded a citation for this line, but how do you cite a claim about something that is not said?) If understanding phenomenology or phenomenological sociology is not central to understanding EM, why are we devoting such a large chunk of the article to trying to explain this connection? I think you are correct in saying that Garfinkel mined the phenomenological texts and I think he was quite explicit about this. If it was reasonable to expect that all readers of this page came with a firm grounding in the phenomenological writings, it would make sense to try to explain what EM was by explaining how it departed from phenomenology. But since we can't expect that, I think we might do better to focus on trying to describe just what it is rather than trying to explain what it is not. Pracktiker (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

>>There is no direct connection with PH in Studies [1967] other than a couple of references to Alfred Schutz, and a wave of the hand to Gurwitsch and Husserl [no Heidegger, no Merleau-Ponty, no secondary authors, no textual citation to Gurwitsch, Husserl, nada].

I agree that some 35 years later, Garfinkel is falling all over phenomenology in praise and references, this as long as he makes it clear that he is re-contexting their work - still no references or citations. Where was he 35 years ago? The point is that as Garfinkel states in regard to Gurwitsch's work: "You really can't do anything [in EM] unless you do read his texts". The pros know this and they read his work. Students or outsiders who don't know this are condemned to repeating empty phrases and pasteing quotes together on terms papers.161.185.150.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

>There really is nowhere in Garfinkel 1967 where he states that EM is a form of phenomenology or phenomenological sociology. To the best of my knowledge, there are also no citations to a phenomenological text appearing in Garfinkel 1967 other than to a couple of articles by Schutz [no paginations for anything]. There are vague acknowledgements to Gurwitsch, Husserl, and Schutz, but no delination as to exactly what role their work plays in EM. That is the issue at hand. The issue is that you cannot even address this issue from within Garfinkel's writings, expressly because there are no clear statements within his writings regarding phenomenology's role in EM (other than that cited below:[2002:176-179;255-258], and this statement is not particularly informative<~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.46 (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective, as a phenomenologist, it is an explicit noematic analysis of concrete social action as an intentional object conducted from within the natural attitude. Paradoxically, all of the stipulations made in the section hold for EM. EM takes the phenomenon of social order and firmly places it in the world without making any reference to the phenomenological structures of consciousness from which it derives its descriptions. Everyone is a phenomenologist in the sense that everyone is engaged in "looking and seeing". But EM descriptions are impossible without a more sophisticated foundation than merely a naive, or sociological, "looking and seeing", and this foundation is the phenomenological theory of consciousness. EM appears as a naturalistic description, but it is in fact a phenomenological description purposely naturalized as a mundane phenomenon - without any reference to a conscious subject, or the structures of consciousness. That's why the section appears as it does. Its difficult to compare two things [PH and EM] when one of the things [EM] explicitly denies the existence of the other for the purposes of analysis. Your comments, or solution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.24.114 (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we don’t need to address “Phronetic Social Science”. I also agree that we don’t need to discuss Phenomenological Sociology here. But I think that the relationship between phenomenology and ethnomethodology is very important. (I started from EM only to realize that a lot done in EM really only retreads the grounds explored by phenomenologists – who had a different focus but share many if not most of the problems.) It is important to notice that describing this relationship in the article is not developing new theories about EM. I think there are enough reliable external sources who state the importance of this relationship. However, I agree that the wording of the section sounds too much like original research is being done in the article (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research for why this is a problem in the wikipedia) – I guess the section will attract criticism unless this tone or style is changed and a few of the requested sources are given. Otherwise I am glad that work on this article has been picked up again! --ozean (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that determining the relationship between phenomenology and ethnomethodology is essential to understanding ethnomethodology. But first, from a factual point of view, what statements within this section do you object to? - or are your objections only as to Wiki form. Also, if, as you state, there have been a number of secondary sources that have acknowledged "phenomenomenology's role in ethnomethodology", name a couple, and specfy what this relationship is. As far as I know Garfinkel's statement cited above, "[Garfinkel:2002:176-179; 255-258]", is the operative position taken by Garfinkel regarding the use of phenomenology in ethnomethodology. For Maynard/Clayman to state that ethnomethodology has a, "phenomenological sensibility", is trading on the usual vagueness in the ethno literature - what does this mean? As a sturm and drang man, you should be sensitive to this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs)

Luckily, Maynard/Clayman provide a bit more meat than just the two-word statement. I haven't checked up on the references that they give, but the section’s opening paragraph states: "Thus, whereas numerous commentators have equated ethnomethodology with phenomenology (e.g. Best 1975, Rogers 1983), it is more accurate to say that a phenomenological sensibility is expressed in ethnomethodology than that the latter is or should be a phenomenological sociology (cf. Anderson et a1 1985, Heap & Roth 1973:363-65, Garfinkel in Hinkle 1977:9-15)." One of the references they give is Garfinkel (but as I said, I haven’t checked these. In addition, it is clear that Maynard/Clayman do talk about the diversity of ethnomethodology, so writing about the role of phenomenology they will not only address EM as envisioned by Garfinkel. More discussion about the relation between EM and phenomenology can be found in Liberman 2007. With Liberman, however, you might object that it is more about EM’s role in phenomenology than the other way round. But for me this was good enough. =)

>>ASchutz responds: You still need to provide a relevant citation to support your claim. As previously stated, this article is about Garfinkel's version of ethnomethodology. If you would like to add a section on "Developments", please feel free. Keep in mind, however, if EM has a myriad of variation [some of which contradict each other], then it runs the risk of being nothing. I am an orthodox ethnomethodologist. My version of EM must avoid it being labelled just another "members method". It can, of course, be only this, but in that case I would much rather read philosophy, or novels (Balzac, Marx, Nietzsche, etc., will teach you more about the structure of social reality than any sociologist will).

"Phenomenological sensibility" - is this an analytically descriptive term?. They are playing with vagueness at your [the reader's]expense. At any given time, I could say that you have a "homicidal sensibility" (cut off in traffic, overbilled on your credit card, submitted paper rejected by editors), but that does not mean that you are potentially homocidal. WTF does this type of statement say about the discipline? Nada.

A few examples regarding the "unlucky" statements:

• "orthodox adherents to the discipline - those who follow the teachings of Garfinkel - know better [sic] than"

>>ASchutz writes: This is a common American expression. It is not an insult. Luck has nothing to do with its selection. It is meant to reflect both a higher level of understanding among some of HG's commentators, and the threat of retaliation by HG for misrepresenting his work - the offender would be deleted from the periodic listing of approved EM'ers appearing in HG texts. It "resonates" - has multiple meanings.

• "The confusion between […] the practices of some ethnomethodologists, who sift through […] To further muddy the waters, some phenomenological sociologists seize upon […] So called phenomenological analyses […] Another way of convincing yourself […] should not be mistaken for […]" - to me as a non-native speakers, the tone of these statements suggests a negative evaluation, i.e. it is not neutral.

>>ASchutz writes: There is an element of sarcasm by academic standards, but playfully so. Academic writing is generally sterile and unreadable for the general public, and by me. Why not some "juicing" of the script (Hollywood reference): make it more readable, interesting, and involving. It does not falsify anything. Please also notice that these two paragraphs, "mining", and "sifting", are appropriate West Coast literary tropes - it may also help that I just watched Treasure of Sierra Madre.

Your English is perfectly good. You are also involved in a contradiction: you want to play editor, and at the same time you hide behind being a non-English speaker. If you are truly the latter (don't feel you have an adequate command of English), you would not play the former :). Jump in. Your English is fine, and better than most.

• "So called phenomenological analyses of social structures that do not have prima facie reference to any of the structures of intentional consciousness should raise questions as to the phenomenological status of such analyses." I am not sure that I agree with the content of this statement. It seems to imply (on first sight at least) that phenomenological analysis always & necessarily requires explicit references to the structures of intentional consciousness. Sounds at least like a narrow interpretation of phenomenology to me.

In general, the tone of voice of this section seems to be mostly concerned with rectifying the beliefs of supposedly confused people, who think EM and phenomenology are the same. They are not the same, of course. And the article should indeed enlighten its readers about this fact. But I would enjoy it, if it would go further than that and specify what their relation is, other than saying that it is not: EM = PH. As things stand now, the only positive information is the Garfinkel 2002 citation. Since this article does talk about EM in general, I think that it would be useful to also extend the section to present knowledge about other aspects that make the relation between EM and phenomenology relevant and interesting. --ozean (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

>>ASchutz writes: Phenomenology is defined by its methodology. Most academic social science disciplines should be defined by their methodology - they would then rapidly pass into oblivion. If everything is everything, or something can have multiple variations [including contradictory versions], then it is nothing. I hear where your coming from, but sociology cannot be just the marketing of sociological "products" for students. The business model took over most of academia in the middle 70s. Hopefully, EM is more than just trying to market a consumable intellectual product under multiple brand names.ASchutz (talk)

So you don't like my literary choices. I think that they are fun sentences which are informative, and go directly to the point of the relationship between EM and PH [and I note that you avoided committing to the factual character of the statements]. Once we agree on the factual nature of the section, we can rewrite it to a more acceptable Wiki format. If you don't agree with the factual nature of the statements, then present some alternatives.

My reading of your expanded Maynard/Clayman quote appears to prove my piont: they are saying, in their convoluted way, that EM is not to be equated with a form or version of PH, but yet [somehow] it has a "phenomenological sensibility". Logically, it cannot both not be equated/equatable with phenomenology and yet have a "phenomenological sensibility" - they can't have it both ways, unless they provide some distinction as to what they have in mind - they don't, and there is no such distinction in the literature. They are trading on the confusion in their exposition of the alledged similarity/difference. What's the difference in saying that PH and EM are not the same, are the same, or saying that EM has a "phenomenological sensibility". As assertion to the first or second tells you something, with the third you come out knowing nothing more than when you went in, in terms of knowing the differece between the two disciplines, or how EM uses [or abuses] PH. - they are alledgedly doing exposition here, the reader should not have to play twenty questions with the authors.

And this, of course, goes back to the issue at hand. If the 2002 statement rules, then EM does not "officially" make use of PH other than as described in the section. If there is more to it than that, where in the literature can you locate an alternative reading? I can't. Bottom line: if EM's use of PH is only to "misread" phenomenological texts for its own purposes, then it is not a form of phenomenology. If I take miscellaneous procedural statements from a text in formal theory and use it in an instructional cookbook, I am cooking, not doing formal theory.

Propose a rewrite of the section to get the ball rolling. So far, you are only playing editor, which is unfair because you haven't written anything yet for the text. [Lieberman, given enough time, will undoubtably correct all of Husserl's errors and help rewrite the history of German philosophy.:)]

Also, phenomenology has both a well developed theory [the theory of consciousness] and a well developed methodology [analytical description of the objects of intentional consciousness]. According to Heritage [theory] and Rawls [method], EM has neither. My "limited" view of PH is consistent with Husserliam phenomenology as presented by Gurwitsch - the exact same text that Garfinkel knows by heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.92 (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucky for us, Aron Gurwitsch's, Field of Consciousness, is now back in print. It appears in an expanded form in, Aron Gurwitsch, Collected Papers V.III, Springer 2010. Field (1964) has been out of print for a number of years, now thanks to Springer, we can all do Ethnomethodology! As HG says: "...you can't do anything unless you do read his texts" (Garfinkel:2002:167).ASchutz (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The "clean up" request is made as a result of the mixed citation formats appearing in the text: ASA and Wiki. If someone can convert the ASA citations to the Wiki format, and move the appropriate "References" to the "Notes" section, it would resolve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ethnomethodology and phenomenology

Here is an interesting statment from Maynard/Kardash at, sociologyencyclopedia.com, p.1484.

"There is a strong influence of phenomenology on ethnomethodology, but Garfinkel deemphasized perceptual knowledge as a mental process or activity in favor of a concern with embodied activity and the practical production of social facts as that production resides in lived experience..."[blah blah run-on sendence/these guys do like to rattle on].

How ambiguous is that:

[1] "There is a strong influence of phenomenology on ethnomethodology...". This, I believe is undeniable. The problem consists of determining whether this influence is: (a) direct in terms of ethnomethodology being founded as a form of phenomenology itself, a phenomenological sociology a la Schutz; (b) founded on phenomenological insights taken from phenomenology, but not itself a form of phenomenology; or, (c) based on intentionally, "misread(ing)", phenomenological texts as Garfinkel states [2002].

The available literature authored by Garfinkel directly supports (c). There is nowhere in Garfinkel 1967 or 2002 that supports (a). A case can be made for (b) in terms of the "oblique references" approach appearing in the Wiki article, but is condemned to ambiguity as to "what" and "how far" the influence extends, as Garfinkel rarely, if ever, uses citations/pagination when referring to phenomenological texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.45 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

[2] Moving on: "...Garfinkel deemphasized perceptual knowledge as a mental process or activity in favor of a concern with embodied activity...". While one might carp about the ambiguity of terms like, "deemphasize", "in favor", and "concern", as analytical descriptions - rather vague I would say as this is supposed to be an analytic descriptive discipline, not a bar room conversation -there is a larger issue. That issue is point of view: Garfinkel/Maynard/Kardash may deephasize perceptual knowledge for the actors in their schema, but they can't deemphasize perceptual knowledge on the part of the ethnomethodologist doing the description.

Sociology is inherently a cognitive discipline (whether defined as scientific, hermeneutic, or literary fiction). If they are creating an actor who is different from the ethnomethodologist [grossly: actor non-cognitive, EM'er cognitive in their actions], then they are creating yet another sociological "dummy" - that is, an actor created that is different from the EM'er doing the description. An actor "created" to fit the demands/needs of their analytic scheme. Actors act in diminished capacity under this model. We have been up this road before. Often.

As far as the shift in emphasis to, "embodied activity", is concerned, there are more problems. This shift is likewise filled with ambiguity as there is a copious phenomenological literature dealing with the phenomenology of embodiment. Merleau-Ponty for one [which Garfinkel has already mined], but even Husserl has a number of works dealing with embodiment, and there is a vast secondary phenomenological literature regarding the subject. As such, how does the notion that EM is moving away from perceptual knowledge, toward a concern with embodiment serve to distinguish, or distance, EM from the phenomenology of perception?

Technically, the phenomenology of embodiment is still a phenomenology of perception. One does, after all, have to be able to perceive the body in order to describe it- it cannot describe itself. Yet agan, this is a difference with no difference. My own view is that the move to this emphasis is based on the needs of EM's analytic schema, and, a smokescreen of sorts: how do you contest a line of argument, or "findings", when EM puts forth a non-foundational quasi-analytic of embodiment, an actor whose actions are conceived as being non-cognitive, and social facts which are always embedded in pure process and self-constituting. This not to mention that all this is situated in a specific, localized setting to which the reader was not, and cannot, be party, or reproduce, or verify, according to any notion of a standardized methodology. This type of approach guarantees that all arguments will be circular and lead nowhere.

[3] The claim that the production of social facts resides in the activities of practical actions in lived experience [more or less] tell us very little. Where else would it reside? Whose experience (actor, observer, or both) - that nasty issue of point of view raises its ugly head. Obviously, they are referring to embodied action here, not perceptual or cognitive experience, but "lived experience" is a fundamental phenomenological concept: for Husserl's phenomenology of perception, for Heidegger's phenomenology of Being. Now they appropriate this term and apparently want to respecify it as their own without any qualification, or development? This ground has been plowed before in the 1920s: see Martin Heidegger [above].

Additionally, what does it mean to state that the production of social facts resides in lived experience: (a) lived experience as embodied, (b) lived exprience as consciousness, (c) lived experience as embodied consciousness? Phenomenology deals with these issues very sucessfully, ethnomethodology appears to have real problems sorting these types of issues out. The helter skelter rearrangement of phenomenological ideas into a sociological patchwork "product" of indeterminate origins produces these types of ambiguities and contradictions.

If EM is seeking theoretical refuge in "embodiment", it appears to be announcing that it is going to re-present/re-plow the phenomenological literature on embodiment - and distance itself from any form of analytic, or quasi-analytic, accountability. This is fully consistent with the ethnomethodological tradition.

I continue to support the view that the "Phenomenology" section represents an accurate description of EMs relationship with phenomenology. I also believe that it is important given the nature of EM's "appropriation" of the phenomenological literature for its own purposes.161.185.151.92 (talk)

And so say all of usASchutz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

End game: "The methods of ethnomethodological studies of work and science [also settle the issue, but these methods] are contrary to Husserl's methods" [Garfinkel/Liberman:2007:6].ASchutz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC).

Yet more: "...Garfinkel deemphasized matters of consciousness to bring forward the orderliness of concrete activities. Correspondingly, he rejected Husserl's philosophical and introspective method of analysis and substituted a commitment to naturalistic observation..." (Maynard/Clayman:1991). The authors make the mistake of portraying phenomenology as a form of "introspection", but this does not impact their characterization of ethnomethodology. They also mistakenly counterpose phenomenology with naturalistic observation - phenomenology is fully capable of naturalistic observation. Maynard has consistently represented phenomenology as a form of introspection, and consistently commits the error of psychologizing it's findings - but then again, he isn't a phenomenologist.ASchutz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

It's interesting to contrast the above statement with Maynard/Clayman's statement re: ethnomethodology's, "phenomenological sensibility", appearing in the beginnings of this article, and the other Maynard/Kardash statement re: "strong influence". It appears that they seek to use phenomenology as a form of theoretical legitimacy, while maintaing that ethnomethodlogy is an original discipline - sui generis. See comment re: "patchwork product" appearing above.ASchutz (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Brief Interlude

First some credentials: I am Howard Schwartz in real life (hi all!), one of Garfinkel's major students in the late 60's and early 70's when I was to my knowledge the only Ethnomethodologist to have taught as a Professor at Harvard. This does not make me at all uniquely qualified, but does suggest I know a bit of what I speak. The conflicts and cantroversies on this page are, alas, typical of Ethnomethodology and Ethnomethodologists for decades. In part, this stemmed from one of Garfinkel's laudable traits: He never produced clones of himself, but identified the strong points of his students and nourished them. This produced many different, but equally self confident social scientists. It was build into the man and `the work' that there would and should never be some agreed upon, well established version of what Ethnomethodology was. It was one of Harold's anguishes that, because of this, what he created might not survive his passing on - at least without equally creative people that he inspired. All that said, I regret the `in-group' narrative style of this article, which I fear will be too dense for ordinary readers to penetrate. I wrote in this way myself for many years, but have come to believe that many of Garfinkel's insights can be effectively communicated, without loss of subtle detail - in an ordinary English narrative style. I would hope the author would identify him/her self (surely not Alfred Schutz risen from the dead!), and be interested in a possible, collaborative rewrite. Perhaps some of us can introduce readers to the many observations Garfinkel made, decades before other disciplines took them up. I doubt any of us will ever agree about what Ethnomethodology was, is, has become, or should be.Howards21 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say: splendid! Cheers, Mike Restivo (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny, you don't sound like you are capable of being "collaborative". Besides the self serving puffery, you come right out of the box casting aspersions on our "in-group", insulting our editor's writing style, and imply that there is something sinister at work here [let's out the editor] - its suppose to be about ideas here, not personal identities. Your position is clear: "I doubt any of us will ever agree about what Ethnomethodology was, is, has become, or should be". We wholeheartedly agree. That's the problematic for the discipline: 44 years after the publication of Studies, people are still debating WTF this is about . Proceed. The ball is in your court. ASchutz.

Evidently not.

In the mid 70s, Garfinkel gave a talk at UC Berkeley [as a favor to Troy Duster]. He was reviewing a catalog of the ethnomethodological properties of accounts. At its conclusion, he was asked a question by someone in the audience. Garfinkel was asked point blank whether the properties of accounts that he was discussing also applied to the account that he had just given. Without skipping a beat he said: "of course", and took the next question.

I think that this will clarify Howard's statement appearing above.ASchutz (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

``You don't sound like you are capable of being "collaborative". I would hope I can be. My remarks about language use and accessiblibility for a general reader are, of course, personal opinions and goals, not prescriptions or pseudo-facts. Im happy to honor those who want to go in different directions, or see matters differently.Howards21 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Proceed. The ball is in your court. ASchutz (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidently not.

An appreciation of Howard's work can be found in the Dennis/Sharrock's paper: "Howard Schwartz: An Introduction". The article is avaialble online under this title. Howard is also the co-author of an outstanding methodology text which has been in print for over twenty years - no mean achievement. ASchutz (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the intro to the article. It strings together three citable references. I don't think it is particularly useful to the new reader. I think this is what the problem is with stringing quotes together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.167.210 (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Social Orders

Let's get analytical: what are the characteristics of "social orders". If I am not mistaken, no mention of this concept is made in Garfinkel 1967. Garfinkel 2002 has only 2 references to this in the Index, although it has multiple references to "phenomenon of order". As EM's "object" of interest, what do social order consist of? ASchutz (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

REWRITE OF ORIGINS

Moved down from the top of page.

In the interests of brevity, I consolidated these two sections. The surfing example gets lost, but gets replaced with an example from Garfinkel's own research. We also lose the etiology of the term, but I think this would be better handled on the Wiktionary page anyway. Pracktiker (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. I have a couple of concerns: [1] IMHO the original is more fact based than your rewrite, and I believe more useful to new readers; [2] the tendency to go all squishy and vague in descriptions of ethnomethodology does not serve the discipline well. In regard to the latter point: the use of words and phrases such as "gestures" toward, "very broad area of inquiry", "open ended reference to any kind of sense making procedure", and [god forbid] "signpost of uncharted dimensions" [sounds like something from The Twilight Zone, or X-Files], combined with Howard Schwartz's statement re: the "indeterminacy" of forms of inquiry, makes ethno sound like some New Age pursuit. Frankly, if I walked into a class where some Prof was talking like this, I would run, not walk, to the registrar and change majors. How about a compromise where you blend the original with your rewrite? ASchutz (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This page as it stands is dire. It is written in wildly varying style, is laden with jargon, and is full of vaguely-worded and contorted statements that serve only to confuse. Citruswinter (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should bear in mind Einstein's caution that, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Pracktiker (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between simplicity, and intentional ambiguity and willful obfuscation. I note with interest your elimination of the complete section entitled, "What is Ethnomethodology". This, no doubt, in an effort to make the article more accessible to the layman. ASchutz (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the answer to, 'what is ethnomethodology?' can be found in the opening section. If not, we need to address that.

Beyond that, I'm a little alarmed at how rapidly the rhetoric heated up here. I don't believe that you have any grounds for accusing me of "intentional ambiguity and willful obfuscation" on the basis of my contributions to this page. In fact, I'm seeking to redress some of the ambiguity and obfuscation already to be found there. Pracktiker (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Contest, context, context. No need for alarm. I am not accusing you personally of "intentional ambiguity and willfull obfuscation" - yet :). You haven't written anything, you have only judiciously strung together a series of quotes. I am pointing out a systemic thrust in the academic descriptions of EM toward ambiguity and obfuscation. I have underlined this with the five examples cited. My question is: why do you want to use these types of characterizations in your entry? They may be quotable, but they are virtually empty of meaning. The most extreme example being the Star Trek quote re: "signpost of uncharted dimensions". I can't read this without laughing. I am interested in trying to present EM as a serious discipline, not some pastiche of philosophically retreaded ideas, and rhetorically specious programmatic characterizations. To maintain that EM can be anything, or is un-specifiable in it's possibilities is not particularly valuable information to the uninitiated.

I pray to differ. The point of the Heritage quote is to suggest to the reader that the field of inquiry is a very broad one. It is not meant to detract from the seriousness of the enterprise, nor does it have anything to do with "philosophically retreaded ideas" (whatever that might mean). I might add it comes from a carefully written account of the field by a knowledgeable author and is not a "rhetorically specious programmatic characterization." Pracktiker (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue of concern here is the issue of boundaries - what is it? You can say its "open ended", "indeterminate", "a signpost of uncharted dimensions", it "gestures" toward, etc., etc., but that begs the question. Just because JH says it doesn't make it a useful description in terms of telling you what this about. Think about it from the perspective of the novice reader. ASchutz (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The section that you deleted was quite old and had been "edited" by others into the state in which it appeared. It was in need of a rewrite, but I don't think that it should have been eliminated - especially on a unilateral basis - with no prior discussion. I would appreciate it if the courtesy of prior notification could be observed - this does not extend to corrections to grammar, spelling, simplifications of statements and the rephrasing of statement, etc.ASchutz (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions and "what is X" sections are certainly out of style for an encyclopedia - if it were to be reformatted as an "overview" section those are still discouraged by the MOS.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. This section did need a rewrite. It 's coherence and readability had been significantly damaged by ad hoc editing by parties unknown. The question is should it serve as the basis of a re-write, or should it merely be replaced with something else?ASchutz (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It was in need of more than a touch-up. (See my earlier comments at the top of this page.) The full article is much too long, goes off on too many tangents, and lacks a coherent organization. The question in this case was not whether that section could be repaired, but whether we needed it in the first place.

That's because the article it is done by a number of people, and has been edited by even more. That's the nature of the beast. I think that a section that addresses the issue of "What is Ethnomethodology" is quite fundamental to any article on the subject. ASchutz (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving on (and providing the courtesy of advance notification) I would suggest pushing Sect. 2 ("Varieties of Ethnomethodology") down and doing a serious rewrite of "Theories and Methods." Since EM doesn't start from theories, nor does it embrace fixed methodologies, it seems an ironic choice of title. I would suggest instead that the section devote itself to providing a concise exposition of Garfinkel's policies. That would capture most of the important stuff and give a clear view of the field of inquiry. Useful bits from the current Sect. 7 ("Some leading policies, methods, and definitions") could be imported there. Pracktiker (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You can move "Varieties" to any position you want. "Theories" is a different matter. There is no claim that ethnomethodology has a formal theory, or a formal methodology appearing anywhere in this section. In fact, the opposite is the case. I agree that EM does not proceed from a formal theory [I say so, at least twice], but "The Fundamental Assumption of Ethnomethodology" is at least a mundane theoretical statement - it is also probably subject to falsifiability, and an argument could be made that it is a formal theoretical statement. EM's agreement with Durkheim's statement re: the objective nature of social organization is another one. And the respecification of the latter by the former is a third. These may not be formal theoretical statements in the "falsifiability" sense, but they are, at least, theoretical statements which drive ethnomethodological inquiry - this is the way that EM does theory.

Yes, you are right. EM starts from certain assumptions, but it is not theory driven. It does not do hypothesis testing; it operates in a different way. The issue here is why headline the topic in an article that is meant to positively describe what EM is? To enter into this discussion, IMHO, gets us off on the wrong foot and is beyond the scope of an elementary introduction. Pracktiker (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I congratulate you on being the first to use the concept of "irony" in the discussion. You would like it better that the section should be entitled: "NO THEORY AND NO METHODS" :); I don't think that a novice reader would find this interesting. I have stated that EM does not engage in formal theory, as in hypothesis testing. It does do mundane theorizing, just like any other man in the street. This is consistent with the origination of the theory of organizational accounts, and the development of the discipline. Ethnomethodology does not claim any transcendental status for its accounts. The validity of it's description are no different than those of the man in the street.ASchutz (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever read Felix Kaufmann's "Methodology of the Social Sciences"? Many of EMs concepts are derived from it: the "Occasioned Corpus" is the most talked about. This text was fundamental in HG formation of the idea of EM and organizational accounts. Many of Kaufmann's analyses of scientific accounts were respecified by HG and transposed to the properties of mundane accounts. Think of everyone as a mundane "scientist" with their situationally specific member's methodology, and you get the drift.

Again, I am not disagreeing with you. What you say is true. This sounds like a great start for a paper ("Felix Kaufmann's Unsung Contributions to the EM Program"). But why do we need to bring it up in the context of an introductory article on EM? I have the same concern, BTW, about the extensive treatment of phenomenology on this page. Pracktiker (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it makes the article interesting. There are any number of other descriptions of EM on the Internet. They are essentially all the same. They string together quotes from authors that anyone could glean from a cursory look a the literature. They are glosses of any real discussion of the discipline, how it works, and how it relates to other forms of philosophical and social science inquiry. Now you want to redo the phenomenology section? You keep expanding your scope. Do not touch my phenomenology section without posing an argument re: what you are going to do. ASchutz (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"My phenomenology section"? And I thought this was a collaborative writing exercise. Pracktiker (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ASchutz is in charge of the phenomenology section - he channels his other contributors. ASchutz also notes that the Intro has now been unilaterally changed. ASchutz is not happy about this unilateral change ASchutz (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the essential question is "What is Ethnomethodology". If you can't provide a description of this, then rearranging and defining the other sections is just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. Have at it.ASchutz (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you there. If we carefully rework this page and if a naive reader reads the revised article in FULL and still cannot answer that question, then we will have failed. Let's start rearranging some deck chairs. Pracktiker (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's limit the the current effort to the production of a section entitled: "What is Ethnomethodology". Leave the other stuff alone until this has been accomplished. Incidently, I also wrote the first three lines in the article. I have never liked them as they are exactly what I am not interested in as an exposition: the stringing together of vague and indeterminate quotes, and the glossing of the disciplines foundations.

Re: "failure", no one else has ever produced a coherent description of this discipline. If they had, there would be no need for all the articles on "What is Ethnomethodology" - a varitable cross-generational cottage industry. As far as I am concerned, if they had, you could just open this page and see a single citation. There is a respectible Prof in the midwest who now touts to be teaching what EM is not as a distinct part of his class on what it it. That should help fill out the semester. Proceed.ASchutz (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to express my thanks for keeping this going and - even more - for agreeing to being on the Titanic ;) But seriously: if you two manage to tune this article together, than I am quite optimistic about the results. Thanks! --ozean (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Page Reorganization

In the opening section we had a sentence that began, "Ethnomethodology's research domain ..." and another that read, "Ethnomethodology's research focus ...". That section was redone a while back, but I no longer remember the rationale for having both. They seem to say pretty much the same thing, so I consolidated them into a single sentence. Pracktiker (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The two sentences do not say the same thing. "Domain" = field, "focus" = theme. It was a non-technical phenomenological characterization. In addition, they both had foot notes.ASchutz (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you feel there is a serious loss of meaning created by bringing those two sentences together, please offer an alternative. Pracktiker (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ASchutz has already offered an alternative, the original. Why don't you offer an alternative prior to making changes. That way we can avoid these types of conflicts. You have an obligation to present alternatives before implementing them. 161.185.151.93 (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, I think the order of presentation of the sections would read better if they went from a description of the the origins of the term and a descriptive overview of the field before launching into other issues (e.g. discussions of the relationship of EM to mainstream sociology, phenomenology, and CA). I, therefore, moved the old Sect. 3 ("Theory and methods") and Sect. 7 ("Some leading policies") up to the front. Pracktiker (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ASchultz suggested above that we add another section that provides a descriptive overview of the field. I'm afraid this will just lead to more bloat, however. I propose as an alternative that the current Sect. 2 ("Theory and methods") and Sect. 3 ("Some leading policies, methods, and definitions") be pulled together to serve as a conceptual overview. Pracktiker (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ASchutz did not suggest that we add another section that provides a descriptive overview of the field. 161.185.151.93 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

How would anyone know what you are talking about in the above proposal. You are now proposing to move more stuff around and combine stuff. You are now also moving away from providing any section re: "What is EM". You are not exactly respecting the other people who have made contributions to this page.ASchutz (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am proposing that we craft a section that provides a descriptive overview of the area (a "What is EM" section, if you will). But rather than add another section to an already prolix article, I suggest we construct it from pieces salvaged from two of the existing sections.Pracktiker (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There are already overviews of the area on the internet: Maynard/Clayman is the most prolix, er, extensive. Maynard/Clayman has already been cited in the "Varieties" section of the text. You want to do it again? So far your not bringing a whole lot to the article. You have reorganized the page [it looks different, I am not sure if it looks better], you have changed the Intro, I like it less now that I did before - although, as stated, I was not completely happy with it before you changed it, and you have put in an "Origins" page, which I have already provided comment on. Perhaps, Ozean would like to serve an arbiter in this regard. ASchutz (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Be patient; I ain't done yet. I did expand the opening statement. See if it addresses your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pracktiker (talk • contribs) 22:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Try that. I think that the Problem of Order is essential to the definition; it has a footnote. I modified your ending. I would like to have a footnote for this statement however - even though it is obviously factual. I just got a copy of Lynch's Scientific Practice at the bookstore [$4], so I will have even greater access to footnotable material. OZean should still chime in; he has shown himself to be a man of taste and sensibility.ASchutz (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Side Note: Is there really such a thing as "Sack's Gloss"? I have never heard of it, even though as I can recognize the description appearing here as being about something ethnomethodological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

   Sacks' Gloss is mentioned by Garfinkel in his (2002:186) and 2007 pieces. Christian Heath made use of the Sacks' Gloss procedure in his work on the London 
   Underground (Heath and Luff, 1996). Sacks' Gloss is more widely known in EM circles as one of Garfinkel's illustrative stories (Heath, pers comm). 
   Ethnological (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Finally dug this out of my pile o' books. Updated entry w/citation. Thanks for the contribution. ASchutz (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Lynch states that Ethnomethodology "is not a-theoretical" [1995:38]. ASchutz (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC) What a wonderful and informative conceptualization. MLA students might want want to make a study of this discipline ASchutz (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Person who added 3rd line to introductory paragraph ["This approach begins..."]: Why?. It introduces a topic which is not relevant at this point in the conversation, is not developed in any sense, and disrupts the flow of the paragraph [general to particular]. The point that's made in this sentence is covered extensively in one of the sections that follows. Why do you feel that it is necessary to put such a reference here? Also: cited author is not an authority in this field [ethnomethodology]. Statement made is "obvious" to anyone who has read anything about the subject. Will be reverting to the original unless a suitable - dare we say it - account is forthcoming . Peace and out. ASchutz (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues

I came to this article looking for a concise high-level overview of ethnomethodology, but I came away more confused than informed.

I think this article has multiple issues.

essay-like

The introduction and final varieties sections are comprehensible. However, the introduction does not set up the reader for the main body of the article, and the varieties section almost contradicts the key points attempted in the body. The body of the article reads like sections pasted from several different undergraduate essays, with no attempt to link them together. I had hoped that this article (like most wiki articles in sociology) would present a coherent view of ethnomethology, the development of key ideas, controversies, and relevance, but this article does not deliver much more than assorted information under overly broad headings. Compared to other sociology articles in the portal that are formulaic but clear, it's not clear what this article is trying to say, and this article might be too long with respect to trying to cover everything in one go.

So you say. You, of course, are the final arbiter of what is, or is not, "coherent", in the description of ethnomethodology. Your condescending attitude towards the work of others [re: "undergraduates"] is a bit arrogant - if you don't like something, propose an alternative; don't come in denouncing the article as incoherent and the work of intellectual inferiors. The article is the product of a number of people, none of which seeks to control the thoughts of the others - unless these thoughts are in error. Note that there are a number of people who have found this article helpful: see ratings. I also seriously doubt that this article is less coherent than the articles for "most sociology articles in wiki" - take a look at some of the others. ASchutz (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

citation style

Why does this article use at least three different citation styles, two of which are distracting and non-standard for the wiki?

Because different people have contributed to it, and they have not used the same footnoting method. At last count the article has 84 citations - the most for any social science article on Wiki. There are a number of styles of citation. The one that you may not get is the ASA [American Sociological Association] format: [Author:Year/Citation:Page(s)]. If someone wants to standardize all of the styles into one, go for it. Our position: as the article is still evolving - and we do not seek closure - it would be premature to "finalize" the citations.ASchutz (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

expert-subject

As by no means a fluent French user, I find the French version of this article far more useful because it reveals and discusses ethnomethology in an accessible logical sequence of ideas and concepts. This English version reads almost like it's being edited by competing sides of some disciplinary holy war as a self-affirming display for their own audiences. This could be harmful to the general reader. Granted, this could be due to differences between the Continental and Anglo approaches to the social sciences, but that's a dispute worth noting as a dispute, rather than being occluded in tactical syntax. The Grounded Theory article leverages the unsettled topics to good effect.

As such, it would be really nice if an expert in even social science methods could restructure this article such that the core concepts and controversies are clearly identified as such.

Magic5ball (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bon! You are cultured too. So we are neither accessible or logical, and the article appears to be the work of zealots bent solely on showing off. The formulations have nothing to do with the differences between Continental and Anglo approaches to the social sciences. I really like the phrase: "occluded in tactical syntax". All syntax is tactical, but some sentences are more straightforward than others; "...leveraging unsettled topics" is a good one too. What good would an "expert" in social science methods do when the discipline itself does not maintain that it has a fixed method? There are no disputes within the article - only yours - which you refuse to identify. Again, make a substantive proposal for change, or move on.ASchutz (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

---

As a reader, I'm comparing this article to its peers in the Wiki. I have no objection if you do not with to receive feedback from readers you seek to educate. I found this article less informative and comprehendible than its French counterpart for the reasons and criteria listed (feel free to attempt to disprove my learning process, or to prove the effectiveness of this article at communicating its ideas, in this instance). The attitude was not intended to be condescending, but I can see how one might view it that way. **If I knew enough about this subject to make substantial edits to this article, I would,** but the best I can offer now are suggestions about how it might be improved. I would add to that list an affirmation of WP's conventions about not simply presenting lists of facts ("trivia") as is presently the case with the list of quotes in the "Theory and methods" and "Ethnomethodology and phenomenology" sections.

You are, of course, free to (over-)read into my attempt to learn from your work as an indication that I view the current work as originating from "intellectual inferiors". In any case, the French version of this article has pointed me outward in several useful directions, so it is of no consequence to me whether you wish to improve this article or not.

I have no doubt that "a number" of people have found this article helpful. Unfortunately, the ratings as presented give no indication as to the raters' characteristics. But since you bring it up, I note that this article's "well-written" rating of 3.3 is higher than only eight of the 45 articles linked in the Sociology template.

Isreal engages far more contributors and points of view, and will likely never achieve closure, yet adheres to the English Wikipedia community's citation style. Other sociology articles are in the same position.

Finally, I'd like to apologize for not browsing the edit history before making these comments, and for mistaking the **lack of agreement** amongst the editors here about this article's content, with **disagreement** that might accompany disjoint claims that something is simultaneously methodic, methodological (by reference to some other methods), and a-methodological (by claim of being not grounded in any set of theories or practices). (The editors of the Grounded theory article deal with a genuine decades-old holy war in a few paragraphs that constructively build on each other, and that article rates higher than this one). We would have all been spared some time and attention had I realized that this article is amongst those owned by a small number of editors and the usual implications of that condition.

Magic5ball (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So after having undertaken a comparative study of various sites on Wiki, you find this one lacking. You are entitled to your opinion. You admit that you don't know anything about the subject. You think that the French site is more comprehensive and comprehensible [even though it has no citations, and you have a limited knowledge of French]. You state that the article on "Israel" has more contributors and points of view [I don't get the relevance to this discussion]. You liked the "Grounded Theory" article better [I personally find it boring and lacking in depth, and Grounded Theory to be derivative, but that's just me]; I don't feel that my objections to it form the basis for its violation or defilement. It is what it is.

This article is the product of a number of people, who have contributed to the article over a period of time. You are addressing your criticism from the point of view of an official "reviewer" who travels from site to site reviewing the form of other peoples work without having either the background or skill to make contributions of your own. This kind of stance is silly and pointless. Your criticisms are obvious to anyone who looks at the text. They do not affect the substance of the text - they are purely formal objections relative to Wiki format.

The article can't answer to your objections by its very nature - it is a historical composite, and not the product of an individual. Your stance is like the guy who doesn't like the way the world looks and says: 'someone really ought to fix this". I have no intention of doing so as it is not my place to modify other peoples work - when it is not clearly in error. Also, I don't accept you as an editor: you want other people to do the work at your direction, but you are incapable of doing anything yourself. The ratings have taken a hit because you have altered them [downward] prior to responding - a cheap shot.

Why don't you write to the Wiki keeper and have them remove the article in its entirety for all of the reasons that you have outlined. I'm sure that they will find your reasons, and reasoning, as compelling as I have.

Remove your flags and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.143.191 (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If you or anyone else disagree so strongly with my comments, please ignore them, or justify the removal of the tags, or remove them yourself if policy permits. As I said, it was a mistake for me even to comment because there is clearly no intent on the part of the current owners of this article to acknowledge that it could be improved in ways beyond fixing inconsistent citation styles.

When I learn enough about this subject to contribute something meaningful, I will. Until then, I will trust in this the ability of this article's expert owners to keep it under control.

I rated this article as invited by the page. My 1/16th contribution to the "well written" rating would have at most affected that mean by 0.3. Even if I had rated this article a 5 to bring mean above 3.3, this article would still be in the lowest quartrile of the articles in its class for readability. That is, if you believe that the ratings mean anything.

I note, 24.188.143.191, that this is your first and only contribution to Wikipedia. Your anonymous response appears specific, timely, and deeply emotional with respect to this discussion. I hope this isn't some cowardly act of sock-puppetry.

Magic5ball (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Read Garfinkel's quote as appearing in paragraph #9 in Theory and Methods. "Well Written": How would you rate the quote on a 1 to 5 scale? ASchutz (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The salient question is not **how** I would rate that quote, but **why** would I rate that quote in the context of this discussion, or in any context. 130.231.25.45 (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Magic5ball (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point. ASchutz (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)