Talk:Ethnomethodology

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)

The characterisation of Anne Rawls position vis-a-vis Garfinkel and ethnomethodology given above is largely correct. However, it should be noted that subsequent to the publication of Ethnomethodology's Programme, the two fell out and there is significant reason (Rawl's committment to sociological theory and Garfinkel's consistent and resolute opposition to it) to think that there were important differences of principle between them. Note that their association took place towards the end of Garfinkel's life, long after his productive best. It can be substantiated that most, if not all, of the contents of Ethnomethodology's program were written many years before publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalfro (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 August 2015 (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.

synthesis tag

The sections: Theory and methods, and Ethnomethodology and traditional sociology, appear to be original research. Bright warning signs include huge swaths of texts without citation, that make claims that begin, for example:

"Such a reading serves to locate ethnomethodology"

"The larger point here"

"it is a hallmark of the Ethnomethodological perspective that it does not make theoretical or methodological appeals"

"Although the language has changed, the message remains the same" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.187.117 (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Substantive objections would be welcome. Offer conterfactuals.24.188.131.203 (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly within these sections do you object to? I don't find anything going on here particularly controversial.

[1] "Such a reading": All analysis requires interpretation before drawing conclusions based on that analysis. There is textual support for these statements in Rawls/Garfinkel.

[2]"The larger point": This appears to be benign. A number of particulars are presented, then a generalization is made. Nothing partucularly controversial here - the statement is supported by Garfinkel's writings.

[3]"It is a hallmark": This is a factual statement: See "Ethnomethodological Indifference". How is this controversial?

[4] "Although the language": Appears to be a straightforward statement of equivalency. You dispute it? State your objections based on particulars.FMERKIN (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ethnomethodology's position in sociology

The sociology window has ethnomethodology under methods, but it is at least as relevant to theoretical concerns. I'm not sure how to change this. Jalfro 09:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The main body of this article is nearly incomprehensible from a layman's perspective

Previous talks (the newest being from 2014) seem to defend this page's writing style but as a layman it just comes across as gatekeeping whatever the details of this subject actually is. It is written like an essay to be marked, rather than a wiki article with a general audience in mind.

I am (obviously) not qualified to fix this article and unfortunately do not know wikipedia well enough to know where to highlight this page for support, but it really seems like an editor(s) skilled in writing pages on sociological concepts need to rework this page. Kaizoku-D (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong, but since all accounts are situated accounts, indexical and reflexive to the time and situation in which they are constituted, I agree that the entire article be deleted. Let's begin again and hope for better results. 67.81.31.102 (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)