How does one go about doing or engaging in ethnomethodological study of local occasions? Would such study be of value for social workers, hence would it help them to understand the everyday accomplishment of practice as social work? Harold Garfinkel, the founder of ethnomethodology, argued that the task is to start with and to be in the midst of ordinary and everyday activities. A beginning in ordinary, mundane, and everyday activities is also to be surrounded by taken-for-granted understandings, frameworks, and facts or facticities. The focus on “facticities” of everyday things directs us to attend to utterly ordinary and mundane interactions, and here there is deep congruence with social work interests and practices.
Findings
This paper turns to Garfinkel’s oeuvre to set out in readily understandable language the orientation and tools needed for social workers to do ethnomethodological studies. A focal question is: Just how might social workers in the midst of practice actually go about engaging in EM?
Application
By taking up tools from ethnomethodology, social workers can better understand and explicate the essential reflexivity of their everyday practice. As a result, EM provides a pathway for both understanding and teaching effective social work through a reflective and reflexive turn.
BalesR. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups.
Cambridge, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
2.
BallM. (2005).
Working with images in daily life and police practice: An assessment of the documentary tradition.Qualitative Research,
5(4), 499–521. doi:10.1177/1468794105056925
BruceS.WallisR. (1983).
Rescuing motives.British Journal of Sociology,
34(1), 61–71. doi:10.2307/590609
5.
BruceS.WallisR. (1985).
‘Rescuing motives’ rescued: A reply to Sharrock and Watson.British Journal of Sociology,
36(3), 467–470. doi:10.2307/590461
6.
CarrD. (1970). Translator’s introduction. In E. Husserl (Ed.), Crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology (D. Carr, Trans.) (pp. xv–xliii). Evanston, IL: Northwestern.
7.
de MontignyG. (2016).
Ethnomethodological indifference: Just a passing phase?Human Studies,
40(3), 331–364. doi:10.1007/s10746-016-9405-5
8.
DobashR. E.DobashR. P. (1979). Violence against wives.
New York:
Free Press.
9.
DobashR. E.DobashR. P. (1992). Women, violence and social change.
New York, NY:
Routledge.
10.
EpsteinN.BishopD.LevinS. (1978).
The McMaster Model of family functioning.Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling,
4(4), 19–31. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606
11.
GarfinkelH. (2007).
Lebenswelt origins of the sciences: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism.Human Studies,
30(1), 9–56. doi:10.1007/sl0746-007-9046-
12.
GarfinkelH. (2006). Seeing sociologically the routine grounds of social action.
Boulder, CO:
Paradigm.
GarfinkelH. (1991). Respecification: Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, meaning, method, etc. in and as of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society I–an announcement of studies. In ButtonG. (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 10–19).
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
16.
GarfinkelH. (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 Theory,
6(1), 103–109. doi:10.2307/201918
17.
GarfinkelH. (Editor). (1986). Ethnomethodological studies of work.
London, England:
Routledge.
18.
GarfinkelH. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
19.
GarfinkelH. (1963). A conception of, and experiments with, “Trust” as a condition of stable concerted actions. In HarveyO.J. (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction: Cognitive determinants (pp. 187–238).
New York, NY.
Ronald Press.
20.
GarfinkelH.WiederD. L. (1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In WatsonG.SeilerR. M. (Eds.), Text in Context (pp. 175–206).
Newbury Park, NJ:
Sage.
21.
GarfinkelH.LynchM.LivingstonE. (1981).
The work of discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar.Philosophy of Social Science,
11(2), 131–158. doi:10.1177/2F004839318101100202
22.
GarfinkelH.SacksH. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In McKinneyJ. C.TiryakianE. A. (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 338–386).
New York, NY:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
23.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life.
Garden City,
NY: Doubleday Anchor.
24.
GoffmanE. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior.
New York, NY:
Pantheon.
25.
HanksW. F. (2000).
Indexicality.Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,
9(1), 124–126. doi:10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1-2.124
26.
HaveP. (2005).
The notion of member is the heart of the matter: On the role of membership knowledge in ethnomethodological inquiry. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung,
30, 28–53. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20762011
27.
HeapJ. (1975).
Non-indexical action.Philosophy of the Social Sciences,
5(4), 393–409. doi:10.1177/004839317500500303
28.
HusserlE. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy (D. Carr, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
29.
HusserlE. (1983). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy. First Book: General Introduction to a pure phenomenology (F. Kersten, Trans.). The Hague, NL: Martinus Nijhoff.
30.
Kovel, J. (1981). The age of desire: Reflections of a radical psychoanalyst. New York, NY: Pantheon.
31.
LynchM. (2000).
Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge.Theory, Culture & Society,
17,#3: 26–54. doi:10.1177/02632760022051202
32.
LynchM. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science.
Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University.
33.
LynchM. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a research laboratory.
London, England:
Routledge.
34.
McGoldrickM.CarterB.Garcia-PretoN. (2011). Self in context: Human development and the individual life cycle in systemic perspective. In McGoldrickM.CarterB.Garcia-PretoN. (Eds.), Individual, Family, and Social Perspectives: The expanded family life cycle (pp. 20–41).
Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
MarxK.EngelsF. (1976) . The German ideology. In MarxK.EngelsF. (Eds.), Collected works (
vol.5).
New York, NY:
International Publishers.
37.
MillsC. W. (1959). The sociological imagination.
New York, NY:
Oxford.
38.
MooreR. J.DucheneautN.NickellE. (2006).
Doing virtually nothing: Awareness and accountability in massively multiplayer online worlds.Computer Supported Cooperative Work,
16(3), 265–305. doi:10.1007/s10606-006-9021-4
39.
ParsonsT. (1960).
Pattern variables revisited: A response to Robert Dubin.American Sociological Review,
25(4), 467–483. doi:10.2307/2092932
40.
ParsonsT.SmelserN.J. (1956). Economics and society. Routledge & Kegan Paul, republished, Taylor & Francis e-library, 2005.
41.
RawlsA.W. (2002). Editor’s Introduction. In GarfinkelH., Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism (pp. 1–64).
Lantham, MD:
Rowan & Littlefield.
42.
RawlsA. W. (2006). Respecifying the study of social order—Garfinkel’s transition from theoretical conceptualization to practices in details. In GarfinkelH. (Ed.), Seeing sociologically: The routine grounds of social action (pp. 1–97).
Boulder, CO:
Paradigm Publishers.
43.
SatirV. (1983). Conjoint family therapy (3rd ed.).
Palo Alto, CA:
Science and Behavior Books.
44.
SchegloffE. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In DrewP.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 101–134).
New York, NY:
Cambridge.
45.
SchutzA. (1970). Collected papers III: Studies in phenomenological philosophy.
The Hague:
Netherlands. Martinus Nijhoff.
46.
SharrockW. W.WatsonD. R. (1984).
What’s the point of ‘rescuing motives’?British Journal of Sociology,
34(3), 435–451. doi:10.2307/590974
47.
Shulman, L. (2016). The skills of helping individuals, families, groups, and communities (8th edition). Boston, MA: Cengage.
48.
SmalleyR. E. (1967). Theory for social work practice.
New York, NY:
Columbia University.
49.
SmithD. E. (2005a). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people.
Lanham, MD:
Altamira Rowan & Littlefield.
50.
SmithD. E. (2005b). Writing the social: Critique, theory, and investigations.
Toronto, Canada:
University of Toronto.
51.
SmithD. E. (2004).
Ideology, science and social relations: A reinterpretation of Marx’s epistemology. European Journal of Social Theory,
7(4), 445–462. doi:10.1177/1368431004046702
52.
SmithD.E. (1990a). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge.
Toronto, Canada:
University of Toronto.
53.
SmithD.E. (1990b). Texts, facts, and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling.
London, England:
Routledge.
54.
SmithD.E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology.
Toronto, Canada:
University of Toronto.
55.
SudnowD. (2001). Ways of the hand: A rewritten account.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT.
56.
ten HaveP. (2013). Identifying birds by their song. In TolmieP.RouncefieldM. (Eds.), Ethnomethodology at Play: Directions in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 75–88).
Surrey, England:
Ashgate.
57.
TolmieP.RouncefieldM. (Eds.). (2013). Ethnomethodology at play.
Burlington, VT:
Ashgate.
58.
WalkerL. E. (1984). The battered woman syndrome.
New York, NY:
Springer.
59.
WalkerG.A. (1990). Family violence and the women’s movement: The conceptual politics of struggle.
Toronto, Canada:
University of Toronto.
60.
WeberM. (1978). In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
61.
WillD.WrateR. M. (1985). Integrated family therapy: A problem-centred psychodynamic approach.
London, England:
Tavistock.
