Re-reading Garfinkel’s 1967 _Studies in Ethnomethodology_ and finding it hugely easier than on my first time through in 1987. I’ve learned and changed since then, but also— so have the times. What was almost incomprehensibly alien then is directly relevant to our now.
Of course that’s pragmatic in part: demonstrating actual value is a way of gaining support from other fields for the work. As Anderson & Sharrock somewhat reluctantly acknowledge.
-
-
But also, being forced to explain EM in terms (non-sociological) outsiders can understand is likely to force clarification on the issues the field goes around in circles on.
-
If EM studies of biology are not helpful to biologists—why not? If they are accurate and explanatory, shouldn’t they be useful and relevant to the everyday concrete practice of biology? I think they can be! But this will take new kinds of work, not just more of the same.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.