ETNOMETODOLOGIA GARFINKEL PDF
HAROLDGARFINKEL: LA ETNOMETODOLOGIA Por Alejandra FuentesG. INTRODUCCION E n 1 9 6 8,H a r o l d G a r f i n k e lb, a j o e l r ó. Abstract. RAWLS, Anne Warfield. Garfinkel’s studies in ethnomethodology: exploring the moral foundations of modern public life. Soc. estado. [online]. . Estudos de Etnometodologia [Harold Garfinkel] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Ao estudar as ações práticas cotidianas como bases da.
|Published (Last):||17 May 2010|
|PDF File Size:||1.74 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.33 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Ethnomethodology is the study of methods people use for understanding and producing the social order in which they live. Ethnomethodology provides methods which have been used in ethnographic studies to produce accounts of people’s methods for negotiating everyday situations. The term’s meaning can be broken down into its three constituent parts: Using an appropriate Southern California example: The focus of the investigation used in our example is the social order of surfing, the ethnomethodological interest is in the “how” the methods and practices of the production and maintenance of this social order.
In essence ethnomethodology attempts to create classifications of the social actions of individuals within groups through drawing on the experience of the groups directly, without imposing on the setting the opinions of the researcher with regards to social order, as is the case with sociological studies. The approach was originally developed by Harold Garfinkelwho attributed its origin to his work investigating the conduct of jury members in Thus, their methods for: Such methods serve to constitute the social order of being a juror for the members of the jury, as well as for researchers and other interested parties, in that specific social setting.
This interest developed out of Garfinkel’s critique of Talcott Parsons ‘ attempt to derive a general theory of society. This critique originated in his reading of Alfred Schutzthough Garfinkel ultimately revised many of Schutz’s ideas.
For the ethnomethodologist, participants produce the order of social settings through their shared sense making practices.
Thus, there is an essential natural reflexity between the activity of making sense of a social setting and the ongoing production of that setting; the two garinkel in effect identical.
Furthermore, these practices or methods are witnessably garrinkel, making them available for study. John Heritage writes, “In its open-ended reference to [the study of] any kind of sense-making procedure, the term represents a signpost to a domain of uncharted dimensions rather than a staking out of a clearly delineated territory.
Ethnomethodology has perplexed commentators, due to its radical approach to questions of theory and method.
Etnometodologia – Wikipedia
With regard to theory, Garfinkel has consistently advocated an attitude of ethnomethodological indifference, a principled agnosticism with regard to social theory which insists that the shared understandings of members of a social setting under study take precedence over any concepts which a social theorist might bring to the analysis from outside that setting.
This can be perplexing to traditional social scientists, trained in the need for social theory and a multiplicity of theoretical references by Anne Rawls, in her introduction to Ethnomethodology’s Program might be interpreted to suggest a softening of this position towards the end of Garfinkel’s life.
On the other hand, the authors and theoretical references cited by Garfinkel do not constitute a rigorous theoretical basis for ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodology is not Durkheimian, although it shares some of the etnometodokogia of Durkheim; it is not phenomenology, although it borrows from Husserl etnometoodologia Schutz’s studies of the lifeworld Lebenswelt ; it is not a form of Gestalt theory, although it describes social orders as having Gestalt-like properties; and, it is not Wittgensteinian, although it makes etnomegodologia of Wittgenstein’s understanding of rule-use, etc.
Instead, these borrowings are only fragmentary references to theoretical works from which ethnomethodology has appropriated theoretical ideas for the expressed purposes of doing ethnomethodological investigations.
Similarly, ethnomethodology advocates no formal methods of enquiry, insisting that the research method be dictated by the nature of the phenomenon that is being studied. Since ethnomethodology has become anathema to certain sociologists, and since those practicing it like to perceive their own efforts as constituting garfinekl radical break from prior sociologies, there has been little attempt to link ethnomethodology to these prior sociologies.
In essence the distinctive difference between sociological approaches and ethnomethodology is that the latter adopts a commonsense attitude towards knowledge. In contrast to traditional sociological forms of inquiry, it is a hallmark of the ethnomethodological perspective that it does not make theoretical or methodological appeals to: For the ethnomethodologist, the methodic realisation of social scenes takes place within the actual setting under scrutiny, and is structured by the participants in that setting through the reflexive accounting of that setting’s features.
The job of the Ethnomethodologist is to describe the methodic character of these activities, not account for them in a way that transcends that which is made available in and through the actual accounting practices of the individual’s party to those settings. Even though ethnomethodology has been characterised as having a “phenomenological sensibility”,  and reliable commentators have acknowledged that “there is a strong influence of phenomenology on ethnomethodology The confusion between the two disciplines stems, in part, from the practices of some ethnomethodologists including Garfinkelwho sift through phenomenological texts, recovering phenomenological concepts and findings relevant to their interests, and then transpose these concepts and findings to topics in the study of social order.
Such interpretive transpositions do not make the ethnomethodologist a phenomenologist, or ethnomethodology a form of phenomenology.
To further muddy the waters, some phenomenological sociologists seize upon ethnomethodological findings as examples of applied phenomenology; this even when the results of these ethnomethodological investigations clearly do not make use of phenomenological methods, or formulate their findings in the language of phenomenology.
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 barfinkel analyses. Garfinkel speaks of phenomenological texts and findings as being “appropriated” and intentionally “misread” for the purposes of exploring topics in the study of social order.
Lastly, there is no claim in any of Garfinkel’s work that ethnomethodology is a form of phenomenology, or phenomenological sociology.
Even though ethnomethodology is not a form of phenomenology, the reading and understanding of phenomenological texts, and developing the capability of seeing phenomenologically is essential to the actual doing of ethnomethodological studies.
As Garfinkel states in regard to the work of the phenomenologist Aron Gurwitsch, especially his “Field of Consciousness” According to George Psathasfive types of ethnomethodological study can be identified Psathas These may be etnlmetodologia as:. The relationship between ethnomethodology and conversation analysis has been contentious at times, given their overlapping interests, the close collaboration between their founders and the subsequent divergence of interest among many practitioners.
In as much as the study of social orders is “inexorably intertwined” with the constitutive features of talk about those social orders, ethnomethodology is committed to an interest in both conversational talk, and the role this talk plays in the etnometodokogia of that order. Talk is seen as indexical and embedded in a specific social order.
Ethnomethodology – Wikipedia
It is also naturally reflexive to and constitutive of that order. Anne Rawls pointed out: On the other hand, where the study of conversational talk is divorced from its situated context—that is, when it takes on the character of a purely technical method and “formal analytic” enterprise in its own right—it is not a form of ethnomethodology.
When such etnometodllogia concepts are generated from within one setting and conceptually applied generalised to another, the re application represents a violation of the strong form of the unique adequacy requirement of methods. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
This section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. June Learn how and when to remove this template message. Ethnomethodology, Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp 15— The discovery of society.
Sharrock, Bob Anderson, R. Anderson The ethnomethodologists. A survey of various ethnomethodological approaches to the study of social practices.
A reader’s guide to ethnomethodology”. Kurt WolfTransaction Publishers, Retrieved from ” https: Sociological theories Science and technology studies Methods in sociology.