ETHNOMETHODOLOGY

Prologue
Although there are important differences between them, ethnomethodology and phenomenology are often seen as closely aligned One of the major reasons for this association is that the creator of this theoretical perspective, Harold Garfinkel, was a student of Alfred Schutz at the New school. Interestingly, Garfinkel had previously studied under Talcott Parsons, and it was the fusion of Parsonian and Schutzian ideas that helped to give ethnomethodology its distinctive orientation

Prologue
While Garfinkel was a student of Parsons, he rejected the latter structural functional perspective and, in the process rediscovered accidentally classical sociological ideas embedded in the work of Durkheim and Weber. Specifically while he accepted basic importance themes in Parsons work such as the importance of normative prescriptions and shared understandings, Garfinkel rejected Parsons fundamental premise that the normative order is separate from and controls behavioural order

Prologue
Instead of Parsonian theoretical abstractions, Garfinkels focus was empirical studies of the everyday world. Thus, Garfinkel continued to work Parsonian issues of order and society not theoretically, but rather in the details of their workingsin their achievement. In these studies, Garfinkel discovered a variety of sociological principles that are consistent with the work of Durkheim and Weber. For one thing, Garfinkel found that the social world was not reified.

Garfinkels Ontology
Garfinkel found that the social world was not reified. This stood in contrast to Parsons' tendency to reify the cultural and social system but was consistent with Webers refusal to reify social structure and Durkheims orientation to study, not reify, external and coercive social facts. For another, Garfinkels commitment to empirical research stood in contrast to Parsons propensity for grand theory and was more consistent with the empirical bent of both Weber and Durkheim

Garfinkels Ontology
After receiving his PhD from Harvard in 1952, Garfinkel settled at the University of California at Los Angeles. It was there that ethnomethodology was developed by Garfinkel and his graduate students. Over the years a number of major ethnomethodologists emerged from the milieu. Geographically, ethnomethodology was the first distinctive theoretical product of the West coast, and it remained centered there for a long time.

Etymology
Given its Greek roots, the term ethnomethodology literally means the methods that people use on a daily basis to accomplish their everyday lives. To put it slightly differently, the world is seen as an ongoing practical accomplishment. People are viewed as rational, but they use practical reasoning, not formal logic, in accomplishing their everyday lives.

Defining Ethnomethodology
We begin with the definition of ethnomethodology as
\ the study of the body of common-sense knowledge and the range of procedures and considerations by means of which the ordinary members of society make sense of, find their way about in, and act on the circumstances in which they find themselves

Defining Ethnomethodology
We can gain further insight into the nature of ethnomethodology by examining efforts by its founders, Harold Garfinkel, to define it. Like Durkheim, Garfinkel considers social facts to be the fundamental sociological phenomenon. However, Garfinkels social facts are very different from Durkheims social facts. For Durkheim, social facts are external to and coercive of individuals.

Defining Ethnomethodology
Those who adopt such a focus tend to see actors as constrained or determined by social structures and institutions and able to exercise little or no independent judgment. In the acerbic terms of the ethnomethodologists, such sociologists tended to treat actors like judgmental dopes. In contrast, ethnomethodology treats the objectivity of social facts as the accomplishment of membersas a product of members methodological activities.

Defining Ethnomethodology: Garfinkels Focus

Garfinkel, in his imitable and nearly impenetrable style, describes the focus of ethnomethodology as follows: For ethnomethodology the objective reality of social facts, in that, and just how, it is every societys locally, endogenously produced, naturally organized , reflexively accountable, ongoing, practical achievement, being everywhere, always, only, exactly and entirely, members work, with no time out, and with no possibility of evasion, hiding out, passing, postponement, or buy-out, is thereby sociologys fundamental phenomenon

Defining Ethnomethodology
To put it another way, ethnomethodology is concerned with the organization of every day life, or as Garfinkel describes it
Immortal, ordinary society In Melvin Pollners terms, this is the extraordinary organization of the ordinary

Defining Ethnomethodology: Focus of Attention

Ethnomethodology is certainly not a macrosociology in the sense intended by Durkheim and his concept of a social fact, but its adherents do not see it as a microsociology either. Thus, while ethnomethodologists refuse to treat actors as judgmental dopes, they do not believe that people are almost endlessly reflexive, self conscious and calculative Rather, following Alfred Schutz, they recognize that most often action is routine and relatively unreflective.

Defining Ethnomethodology: Focus of Attention

The

Hilbert argues that ethnomethodologists do not focus on actors or individuals, but rather on members. However, members are viewed not as individuals, but rather strictly and solely, [as] membership activities the artful practices whereby, they produce large-scale organization structure and small scale interactional or personal structure . In sum, ethnomethodologists are interested in neither micro structure nor macro structure They are concerned with artful practices that produce both types of structures

Defining Ethnomethodology: Focus of Attention & Concepts

One of Garfinkels key points about ethno methods is that they are reflexively accountable Accounts are the ways in which actors explain (describe, criticize and idealize) specific situations Accounting is the process by which people offer accounts in order to make sense of the world. Ethnomethodologists devote a lot of attention to analyzing peoples accounts, as well as to the ways in which accounts are offered and accepted or rejected by others

Defining Ethnomethodology: Focus of Attention

This is one of the reasons that ethnomethodologists are preoccupied with analyzing conversation. To take an example, when a student explains to her professor why she failed to take an examination, she is offering an account. The student is trying to make sense out of an event for her professor.

Defining Ethnomethodology: Focus of Attention

Ethnomethodologists are interested in the nature of that account but more generally in accounting practices by which student offers the account and the professor accepts or rejects it. In analyzing accounts, ethnomethodologists adopt a stance of ethnomethodological indifference. That is they do not judge the nature of accounts but rather analyze them in terms of how they are used in practical action. They are concerned with the accounts as well as the methods needed by both speaker and listener to proffer , understand, and accept or reject accounts.

Garfinkels Cognitive Principle of Indexicality

Radicalism:

Garfinkel goes beyond Schutz to add two important discoveries of his own. Every thing has a context, which must be taken into account in order to make sense of any particular thing. The context is crucial, but it has to be taken for granted that people know what it is. This is the phenomenon of indexicality. Any particular item of significance is an index for what lies beyond it.

Ethnomethodology: Garfinkels Cognitive Radicalism

If we shift our attention to what lies beyond, then the same problem repeats itself: there is a further context, which is again taken for granted and so on The strongest examples of this contextual embeddedness are certain verbal terms that linguists call indexical expressions. Words like I, You, here, there, now, and so forth. It is impossible to define the meaning of these terms without falling into circularity

Ethnomethodology: Garfinkels Cognitive Radicalism

The word you means something different, depending on whether you are saying it to me, or vice versa, or to someone else. But here is Garfinkels point: despite our inability to define such terms with scientific objectivity, we are perfectly capable of using them in every day life And in fact, we are so used to this, that we become upset if anyone calls attention to their indexical quality

Ethnomethodology: Garfinkels Cognitive Radicalism

Garfinkel illustrates this by a series of experimental studies with real-life situations. He stresses, however, that these are not experiments in the conventional scientific sense (which is something he is calling into question) but aids to sluggish imagination. For example, he has his students engage someone in conversation, but to call for clarification for everything that was not completely clear.

Ethnomethodology: Garfinkels Cognitive Radicalism

On Friday night my husband and I were watching television. My husband remarked that he was tired. I asked, How are you tired? Physically, mentally or just bored? I do not know, I guess physically mainly You mean that your muscles ache or your bones? I guess so. Do not be so technical

Ethnomethodology: Garfinkels Cognitive Radicalism

(After more watching) All these old movies have the same kind of iron bedstead in them What do you mean? Do you mean all old movies, or some of them, or just the ones you have seen? Whats the matter with you? You Know what I mean I wish you would be more specific You know what I mean! Drop dead!

Ethnomethodology: Garfinkels Cognitive Radicalism

In every case subjects soon became exasperated, as if tacitly recognizing that such questioning could, in principle, go on ad infinitum. Garfinkel demonstrated the same point by having students report a conversation they had had, and then write down explanations of what was really meant by what was said. When Garfinkel asked them to go back and add more detail, explaining what they meant by their explanations, they could do this, and do it again as he asked for further clarification.

Ethnomethodology: Garfinkels Cognitive Radicalism

But they increasingly unwillingly to do so, because they recognized that the task was endless.

They recognized that to literally state in words all that was implied was impossible.

Garfinkels Cognitive Radicalism

The entire social world, Garfinkel goes on to claim, is like this. It is a set of indexicalities, which are taken for granted They are really called into question, and when they are, the questioning usually stays on a superficial level, accepting fairly quick and easy clarifications instead of pursuing the search for objectivity to its end. For there is no end: the search for objectively definable reality is a bottomless pit.

Ethnomethodology: Garfinkels Cognitive Radicalism

This lends an extremely radical quality to Garfinkels depiction of socially constructed reality. Garfinkel is not asserting some form of mysticism; he is pointing up a major feature of social life; that people avoid having to recognize indexicalities, though they must deal with them all the time. This is above all what ethnomethodologists study.

Ethnomethodology: Garfinkels Cognitive Radicalism

the earmark of practical sociological reasoning, wherever it occurs, is that it seeks to remedy the indexical properties of members talk and conductI use the term ethnomethodologists study to refer to the investigation of the properties of indexical expressions and other practical actions

The Principle of Reflexivity

The other central point of Garfinkels theory is the phenomenon he calls reflexivity. People interpret what is given in each situation as instances of something more general, but what something is never appears, except in particular situations. The general and the particular are reflexively or circularly tied to each other. An illustration of what Garfinkel means by this is given in the quotation at the beginning of this section.

Ethnomethodology: Garfinkels Cognitive Radicalism

Much interaction operates to sustain a particular vision of reality. For example, ritual activity directed toward the gods sustains the belief that gods influence every day affairs. Such ritual activity is an example of reflexive action; It operates to maintain a certain vision of reality. Even when the facts would seem to contradict a belief, human interaction upholds the contradicted belief.

The Principle of Reflexivity

For instance, should intense prayer and ritual activity not bring forth the desired intervention from the gods, rather than reject beliefs the devout proclaim that they did not pray hard enough, that their cause was not just, or that gods in their wisdom have a greater plan. such behaviour is reflexive; it upholds or reinforces a belief, even in the face of evidence that the belief may be incorrect

The Principle of Reflexivity

Much human interaction is reflexive. Humans interpret cues, gestures, words, and other information from each other in a way that sustains a particular vision of reality. Even contradictory evidence is reflexively interpreted to maintain a body of belief and knowledge. The concept of reflexivity thus focuses attention on how people in interaction go about maintaining the presumption that they are guided by a particular reality

Some General Interactive Methods

When analytical attention focuses on the methods that people use to construct a sense of reality, the task of the theorist is to isolate the general types of interpersonal techniques that people employ in interaction. Aaron Cicourel, for example, has summarized a number of such techniques or methods isolated by ethnomethodologists: searching for the normal form doing reciprocity of perspectives using the et cetera principle

SEARCHING FOR THE NORMAL FORM

If interacting parties sense that ambiguity exists over what is real and that their interaction is strained, they will emit gestures to tell each other to return to what is normal in their contextual situation Actors are presumed to hold a vision of a normal form for situation. Actors are presumed to hold a vision of a normal for situations or to be motivated to create one; and hence much of there is designed to reach this form.

Doing a Reciprocity of Perspectives

Borrowing from Schutzs formulation, ethnomethodologists have emphasized that actors operate under the presumption, and actively seek to communicate the fact, that they would have the same experiences were they to switch places. Furthermore, until they are so informed by specific gestures, actors can ignore differences in perspectives that might arise from their unique biographies. Thus, much interaction will be consumed with gestures that seek to assure others that a reciprocity of perspectives does indeed exist

Using the et cetera principle

In examining an actual interaction, much is left unsaid. Actors must constantly fill in or wait for information necessary to make sense of anothers words or deeds. When actors do so, they are using the et cetera principle. They are agreeing not to disrupt the interaction by asking for the needed information; they are willing to wait or to fill in.

Using the et cetera principle

For example, the common phrase, you know, which usually appears after an utterance, is often an assertion by one actor to another invoking the et cetera principle. The other is thus informed not to disrupt the interaction and the sense of reality in the situation with a counter utterance, such as, No, I do not know These three general types of folk methods are but examples of what ethnomethodologists seek to doscover