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.
-
Show this thread
-
This should be ethnomethodology’s hour. Garfinkel was half a century ahead of his time, a prophet of metamodernity. The field he left behind needs a hundred-thousand-volt jolt of electricity to restart its hearthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPmVhyHBRAM …
1 reply 2 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
(Not to discount or denigrate any of the great work that *is* being done in the field, notably by a new generation. It’s just that so much more is possible)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Meaningness
This missive by Anderson & Sharrock also talks about the need to defibrillate EM, but IMO the root problem is more widespread than it having "run its course" (c.f. incentive structures & legacy cruft in science more generally) http://www.sharrockandanderson.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Run-its-Course-VII.pdf …
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @saul
I’ve just read this, thanks! I’ve read several seemingly fairly-similar pieces by Mike Lynch, but the differences were illuminating. The bit on “how can we achieve additionality” is inspiring (and I suspect Lynch would have some objections here).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @saul
Although the “we have to rethink our methodology first” diagnosis seems importantly right in some ways, it seems to me as an outsider even more important to broaden and deepen dialog with other fields, to take “hybrid studies” more seriously.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @saul
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @saul
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.
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.