Ethnomethodology has been torn between scientific and “radical” aspirations insofar as it moves discoursive practices from resources to the topic of the study. Scientific ethnomethodology, such as conversation analysis, studies discoursive praxis as its topic and resource. Standard scientific criteria are accepted to assess the merits of its findings. “Radical” ethnomethodology addresses mundane reasoning exclusively as its topic without recourse to standardized science. I will show that insofar as “radical” ethnomethodology succeeds in bracketing everyday resources, it loses its phenomenon with the very technical skills it uses for this task. This reconsideration enables the development of ethnomethodological social science.
Abbott, Andrew.2004. Methods of discovery: Heuristics for the social sciences . New York: Norton.
2.
Arminen, I.2000. On the context sensitivity of institutional interaction . Discourse & Society11 (4): 435-58.
3.
---. 2004. On the weakness of institutional rules: The case of addiction group therapy. Discourse & Society15 (6): 683-704.
4.
---. 2005a. Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Vol. 2 of Directions in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
5.
---. 2005b. Sequential order and sequence structure: The case of incommensurable studies of mobile talk. Discourse Studies7 (6): 649-62.
6.
---. 2006. Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. In The handbook of the 21st century sociology, edited by C. Bryant and D. Peck.Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Atkinson, P.1990. The ethnographic imagination: Textual constructions of reality. London: Routledge.
8.
Baccus, M.1986. Sociological indication and the visibility criterion of real world social theorizing. In Ethnomethodological studies of work, edited by H. Garfinkel, 1-19. London : Routledge.
9.
Berard, Tim.2003. Ethnomethodology as radical sociology: An expansive appreciation of Melvin Pollner's "Constitutive and mundane versions of labeling theory ." Human Studies26 (4): 431-48.
10.
Blau, Peter.1960. Structural effects. American Sociological Review25:178-93.
11.
Boden, Deirdre, and Don Zimmerman , eds. 1991. Talk and social structure. Cambridge: Polity.
12.
Clayman, S.E., and D.W. Maynard.1995. Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis . In Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities, edited by P. ten Have and G. Psathas, 1-30. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
13.
Dennis, A.2003. Skepticist philosophy as ethnomethodology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences33 (2): 151-73.
14.
Engeström, Y., and D. Middleton , eds. 1998. Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Francis, David, and Stephen Hester.2004. An invitation to ethnomethodology: Language, society and interaction. London: Sage.
16.
Garfinkel, H.1959. Parsons' primer. Unpublished manuscript of Sociology 251: Topics in the Problem of Social Order, University of California , Los Angeles.
17.
---. 1963. A conception of, and experiments with, trust as a condition for concerted stable actions. In Motivation and social interaction , edited by O. J. Harvey, 187-238. New York: Ronald.
18.
---. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19.
---. 1988. Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order*, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in and as of the essential quiddity of immortal ordinary society, (I of IV): An announcement of studies . Sociological Theory6 (Spring): 103-9.
20.
---. 1996. Ethnomethodology's program. Social Psychology Quarterly59 (1): 5-21.
21.
---. 2002. Ethnomethodology's program: Working out Durkheim's aphorism . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield .
22.
---, ed. 1986. Ethnomethodological studies of work. London: Routledge.
23.
Garfinkel, H., M. Lynch, and E. Livingston.1981. The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences11:131-58.
24.
Garfinkel, H., and L. Wieder.1992. Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology, edited by G. Watson and R. M. Seiler, 175-206. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Goodwin, Charles.1994. Professional vision. American Anthropologist96:606-33.
26.
---. 1995. Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science25:237-74.
27.
---. 1996. Transparent vision. In Interaction and grammar, edited by E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson, 370-404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
---. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction . Journal of Pragmatics32:1489-522.
29.
Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff.2000. Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Heritage, John.1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Oxford : Polity.
31.
Kim, Kwang-Ki.2003. Order and agency in modernity. Albany : State University of New York Press.
32.
Kusch, Martin.1989. Language as calculus vs. language as universal medium: A study in Husserl, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
33.
Luff, Paul, Jon Hindmarsh , and Christian Heath, eds. 2000. Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing systems design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Lynch, Michael.1985. Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory. London: Routledge.
35.
---. 1993. Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
---. 1999. Silence in context: Ethnomethodology and social theory . Human Studies12:211-33.
37.
Nevile, Maurice.2004. Beyond the black box: Talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit. Vol. 1 of Directions in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis . Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
38.
Peräkylä, Anssi, and Sanna Vehviläinen .2003. Conversation analysis and the professional stocks of interactional knowledge. Discourse & Society14:727-50.
39.
Peyrot, M.1982. Understanding ethnomethodology. Human Studies5:261-83.
40.
Pollner, Melvin.1991. Left of ethnomethodology: The rise and decline of radical reflexivity. American Sociological Review56:370-80.
41.
Sacks, H.1992a. Lectures on conversation, vol. 1, edited by Gail Jefferson with introductions by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
42.
---. 1992b. Lectures on conversation, vol. 2, edited by Gail Jefferson with introductions by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
43.
Schegloff, Emanuel.1984. On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, edited by J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage, 28-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
---. 1992. Introduction. In Harvey Sacks, Lectures on conversation, vol. 1, edited by Gail Jefferson, ix-lxii. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
45.
---. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Schegloff, E.A., and H. Sacks.1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica8 (4): 289-327.
47.
Silverman, D.1998. Harvey Sacks: Social science and conversation analysis . Oxford: Policy.
48.
Suchman, L.1987. Plans and situated action: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
ten Have, Paul.1999. Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.
50.
Wieder, D.L.1974. Language and social reality: The telling of the convict code. The Hague: Mouton.
51.
Wilson, T.P.1970. Conceptions of interaction and forms of sociological explanation . American Sociological Review33 (4): 697-710.
52.
---. 2003. Garfinkel's radical program. Research on Language & Social Interaction36:487-94.
53.
Zimmerman, D., and M. Pollner.1970. The everyday world as a phenomenon. In Understanding everyday life, edited by J. Douglas, 80-104. Chicago: Aldine .
