EMCA Spring 2011 Newsletter.2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
"Context" Within Conversation Analysis
Raclaw: Approaches to "Context" within Conversation Analysis Approaches to "Context" within Conversation Analysis Joshua Raclaw University of Colorado This paper examines the use of "context" as both a participant’s and an analyst’s resource with conversation analytic (CA) research. The discussion focuses on the production and definition of context within two branches of CA, "traditional CA" and "institutional CA". The discussion argues against a single, monolithic understanding of "context" as the term is often used within the CA literature, instead highlighting the various ways that the term is used and understood by analysts working across the different branches of CA. The paper ultimately calls for further reflexive discussions of analytic practice among analysts, similar to those seen in other areas of sociocultural linguistic research. 1. Introduction The concept of context has been a critical one within sociocultural linguistics. The varied approaches to the study of language and social interaction – linguistic, anthropological, sociological, and otherwise – each entail the particulars for how the analyst defines the context in which language is produced. Goodwin and Duranti (1992) note the import of the term within the field of pragmatics (citing Morris 1938; Carnap 1942; Bar-Hillel 1954; Gazdar 1979; Ochs 1979; Levinson 1983; and Leech 1983), anthropological and ethnographic studies of language use (citing Malinowski 1923, 1934; Jakobson 1960; Gumperz and Hymes 1972; Hymes 1972, 1974; and Bauman and Sherzer 1974), and quantitative and variationist sociolinguistics (citing Labov 1966, 1972a, and 1972b).1 To this list we can add a number of frameworks for doing socially-oriented discourse analysis, including conversation analysis (CA), critical discourse analysis (CDA), and discursive psychology (DP). -
Ethnomethodology and Literacy Research: a Methodological “Road Less Travelled”
English Teaching: Practice and Critique May, 2012, Volume 11, Number 1 http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2012v11n1art2.pdf pp. 26-42 Ethnomethodology and literacy research: A methodological “road less travelled” CHRISTINA DAVIDSON Charles Sturt University, Australia ABSTRACT: This article examines ethnomethodology in order to consider its particular yet under-used perspective within literacy research. Initially, the article outlines ethnomethodology, including its theoretical position and central concepts such as indexicality and reflexivity. Then, selected studies are used to illustrate the application of the methodology and related research methods to the examination of literacy and literacy instruction. This section delineates a number of constraints on the application of the methodology. These include respecification of topic as practical accomplishment, bracketing by researchers of a priori interests and background information to produce unmotivated looking, and meticulous analytic attention to locally produced social phenomenon often only made visible in fine details of transcripts. Ethnomethodology’s contribution is discussed then in light of criticisms concerning the overly restricted nature of the methodology, or some versions of it. It is concluded that despite ongoing critique, the application of ethnomethodology to literacy research may: reveal taken-for-granted ways literacy lessons are accomplished, lead to the description and explication of social actions that constitute literacy instruction, and enhance existing theoretical models of literacy learning and teaching. KEY WORDS: Ethnomethodology; conversation analysis; social interaction; literacy; English. INTRODUCTION Ethnomethodology is a research methodology that originated in American sociology during the 1950s. Harold Garfinkel first developed the approach which was considered controversial at the time because of its critique of the use of theory and quantitative methods of analysis in mainstream sociology (Hester & Francis, 2000). -
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments Although I wrote this book, I cannot take full credit (or, for that matter, blame) for its contents. The book explores the possibility of developing what I am calling a postanalytic approach to the study of scientific practices. As should be obvious throughout, this orientation is strongly influenced (per haps infected) by Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodological approach to situated practical action and practical reasoning. For the past twenty years, I have had the benefit of reading numerous unpublished drafts of GarfinkeFs writings and attending many lectures and seminars in which he and his students discussed and demonstrated novel ways to investigate the produc tion of social order. The specific references I have made in this book to published and unpublished writings can cover only a small part of what I learned from Garfinkel, his colleagues, and his students, including Eric Livingston, Albert (Britt) Robillard, George Girton, Ken Morrison, Ken Liberman, Richard Fauman, Doug Macbeth, Melinda Baccus, and Stacy Burns. My initial efforts to understand ethnomethodology were aided im measurably by close friends and colleagues, including David Weinstein, Alene Terasaki, Bill Bryant, and Nancy Fuller, with whom I shared a preoccu pation with the question “What in the world was Harold talking about?” Garfinkel also read an earlier draft of this book and gave me specific and helpful comments on it. My understanding of different approaches to ethnomethodology and con versation analysis also relied on what I learned from seminars, informal data fessions, and discussions with Melvin Pollner, Gail Jefferson, Emanuel Schegloff, Anita Pomerantz, and Harvey Sacks. Although I am critical of some of their work in this volume, I hope this will not obscure my apprecia tion of their achievements. -
Reading Goffman “Forward”
8 Reading Goffman “Forward” n Chapter 2, we conducted a so-called “backward” readingdistribute of Goffman I and attempted to outline the origins of his microsociological thinking in variety of intellectual perspectives and theoreticalor traditions. In this chapter, we shall try to read him “forward,” as it were, and thus try to identify how elements of his work have inspired other sociological thinkers and are employed as building blocks in contemporary social and sociological theory. Besides recording some of the most significant sociological analyses in the field of everyday, modern life, Goffman’spost, publications have, indisputably, left distinct imprints in contemporary sociological theory. Not only has Goffman’s authorship acted as inspiration or a dialogue partner to some of today’s most distinguished sociological theory builders, his sociology has also acted as a launch pad for what has grown to become a large number of empirically orientedcopy, studies of individuals in different social situations and contexts. In the following, we shall consider the links and inspiration from Goffman to a number of central sociologists who have used or related to his conceptual framework in their own, original theory construction. As Goffmannot has been influential to many sociological thinkers, our listing here of theorists with a Goffmanian flavor is not, of course, an exhaustive one. We have selected a sample of well-known sociologists on whom Goffman’s Doideas have had significant influence. These are Harold Garfinkel and his ethnomethodological position, Jürgen Habermas and his theory on commu- nicative action, Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory, Pierre Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology, and Anthony Giddens and his theory of structuration. -
What Is…. Ethnomethodology?
WHAT IS…. ETHNOMETHODOLOGY? Wes Sharrock The name • By analogy with anthropological specialisms – ethnoscience, ethnobotany • All studies of forms of indigenous understanding • Ethnomethodology – study of indigenous understanding of methods What indigenous methods? • Method in the sense of ‘methodic’ • Methodic ways of organising practical affairs • Organising practical affairs so that they are ‘observable and reportable’ Origins • Originated by Harold Garfinkel (1917 - ) and Harvey Sacks (1935 – 1975) • Sourced in a phenomenological critique of mid-twentieth century theoretical and methodological options in US sociology • Specifically, critique of (a) Talcott Parsons’ theories and (b) empiricist methdology Foundational texts • Harold Garfinkel, Studies in Ethnomethodology, 1967 • Harvey Sacks, Lectures in Conversation, 1992 (lectures given 1965 – 75) Respecification • Ethnomethodology a dissident sociology • Retains a connection to sociological themes but thinks of itself as: • An alternate, asymmetrical and incommensurable sociology This means?? • That one can ‘respecify’ any sociological topic for ethnomethodology (alternate) • Can investigate that topic in ethnomethodology’s terms but not vice- versa (asymmetric) • Results will not answer the original question (incommensurable) How and Why? • Sociology a natural language discipline, social life carried on through use of natural language • This relationship not otherwise much explored • Ethnomethodology’s project: to understand how social order is produced through ‘mastery of natural -
Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis Summer 2017 Volume 8, Issue 8, P.1
The Official Newsletter of the American Sociological Association Section on Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis Summer 2017 Volume 8, Issue 8, p.1 A message from Ken and Aug: Section Officers Dear EMCA Community, Chairs Ken Liberman (University of Oregon) [email protected] We are now ready to celebrate the semicentennial anniversa- ry of Harold Garfinkel’s Studies and the 25th anniversary of Aug Nishizaka (Chiba University) Harvey Sacks’ Lectures. These were seminal scholars whose [email protected] unflagging dedication to their sociological inquiries were Treasurer not simply inspiring for us, but set a moral standard we can Patrick Watson benefit from remembering and memorializing. In addition, [email protected] we will have a Centenary Celebration of Harold Garfinkel’s Council birth from 6:30pm - 8:10pm on Monday, Aug 14, in Room Amelia Hill 514 of the Congress site. We invite members to come and [email protected] share short personal anecdotes and remembrances of Har- old. Complimentary wine will be served. Jason Turowitz [email protected] (As many of you already know, many unpublished materials Daniele Boehringer by Garfinkel have become available at a UCLA library: daniela.boehringer@uni-osnabrueck. http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt087015p0/ de Incidentally, Shiro Kashimura, our member, created an Elliot Hoey interesting site, in which you can find some aspects of how [email protected] Garfinkel developed his idea of ethnomethodology: Chase Raymond https://sites.google.com/site/shirokashimura/Home/forma- [email protected] tive-works-of-ethnomethodology) ... Cont’d on next page! Helena Webb [email protected] In this issue: Anne E.C. -
1 Chapter 29 Performativity and Performance Moya Lloyd Loughborough University Abstract This Article Explores the Concepts of P
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Loughborough University Institutional Repository Chapter 29 Performativity and performance Moya Lloyd Loughborough University Abstract This article explores the concepts of performativity and performance in feminist theory. It begins by examining the idea of gender performativity in the work of Judith Butler, tracing its development from her earliest writings through to Gender Trouble and Bodies that Matter, and showing how Butler’s initial argument draws from phenomenology, and from performance studies (where acts are understood in theatrical terms). This is followed by a discussion of gender understood ethnomethodologically as a type of routine performance or form of “doing”. The second half of the article focuses on linguistic theories of performativity, derived from J. L. Austin and Jacques Derrida, and how they have been used by feminists such as Catharine MacKinnon, Rae Langton, and Judith Butler to illustrate pornography and hate-speech. After a discussion of the performativity of pornography, the focus turns to citationality, resignification, and “talking-back”. Keywords: gender performativity, linguistic performativity, gender as “doing”, gender performance, ethnomethodology, theatrical acts, pornography, hate-speech, “talking-back”. In 1990 a book was published that changed feminist theory profoundly. The book was Gender Trouble and its author was Judith Butler. The transformations it wrought on feminist understandings of the relationship between sex and gender centered on the effect of one of its central concepts. The concept in question was performativity, or, more accurately, gender performativity, for performativity has a history that predates and exceeds the work of Butler. 1 It originates initially in speech act theory; specifically, in the work of English philosopher, J. -
Rawls Vita Updated January 27 2019
Curriculum Vita Name: Anne Warfield Rawls Office Address: University of Siegen SFB “Media of Cooperation” Herrengarten 3, AH-A 213 D-57072 Siegen Office Address: Department of Sociology 149H Morison Bentley University Waltham, MA 02452-4705 [email protected] Telephone Number: (617) 901-5956 (Sociology) FAX (781) 891-3418 ___________________________________________________________ Date When Vitae Was Updated: January 27, 2019 ____________________________________________________________ Education: Baccalaureate: Boston University 1976 Honors: Summa cum Laude Undergraduate "Groundwork for the Discovery of Moral Notions Honors Thesis: in the Social Sciences" Graduate: MA Boston University, Philosophy 1979 PhD Boston University, Sociology 1983 Dissertation Title: "Constitutive Justice: an Interactionist Contribution to the Understanding of Social Order and Human Value" Postgraduate: University of Wisconsin-Madison, NIMH 1986-7 Postdoctoral Fellowship, Department of Psychiatry ______________________________________________________________________ Current Positions: Full Professor, Department of Sociology, Bentley University, 2001-Present. Senior Professor, School of Information, University of Siegen, Germany, 2016-Present Senior Research Fellow, Yale University Center for Urban Ethnography, 2015-Present Director, Garfinkel Archive, June 2008-Present International Advisor, Center for Fundamental Sociology, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, June 2010-Present Associates Researcher, le Centre d’Etude des Mouvements Sociaux (CMS), Ecole Haute -
Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 8) Edited by Paul Drew and John Heritage
UCLA Issues in Applied Linguistics Title Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 8) edited by Paul Drew and John Heritage. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. 580 pp. Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4365f03g Journal Issues in Applied Linguistics, 5(1) ISSN 1050-4273 Author Gonzales, Patrick Publication Date 1994-06-30 DOI 10.5070/L451005175 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 8) edited by Paul Drew and John Heritage. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. 580 pp. Reviewed by Patrick Gonzales University of California, Los Angeles Talk at Work is, as its length indicates, a voluminous collection of papers that investigate the intricacies of talk and interaction within a variety of work settings, or "institutional" contexts. The articles included in this book base their analyses on the research tradition of conversation analysis (CA), a line of inquiry begun well over two decades ago by Harvey Sacks and his colleagues Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson.^ Written primarily by scholars within sociology, a field with a tradition of interest in such settings as the criminal justice system and psychiatric and medical encounters, this collection of research focusing on the talk-in-interacdon between "professionals and lay persons" (p. 3) is the first and most ambitious collection of work entirely dedicated to the examination of institutional interactions from a CA perspective. The collection also represents a welcome trend in studies of language and social interaction, and in particular in CA studies, in which a group of thematically-related papers is presented together rather than scattered throughout various journals and books across several fields. -
Harold Garfinkel Papers LSC.1273
http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt087015p0 No online items Finding Aid for the Harold Garfinkel Papers LSC.1273 Processed by Anne Caiger, 2003. Additions processed by Charlotte B. Brown, University Archivist, 2008-2010. Final processing by Kelly Besser, 2013. Machine-readable finding aid created by Caroline Cubé. UCLA Library Special Collections Online finding aid last updated on 2020 October 26. Room A1713, Charles E. Young Research Library Box 951575 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575 [email protected] URL: https://www.library.ucla.edu/special-collections Finding Aid for the Harold LSC.1273 1 Garfinkel Papers LSC.1273 Contributing Institution: UCLA Library Special Collections Title: Harold Garfinkel papers Creator: Harold Garfinkel Identifier/Call Number: LSC.1273 Physical Description: 86 Linear Feet(160 boxes) Date (inclusive): 1952-2007 Abstract: Harold Garfinkel was a professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) from 1954 to 1987. The papers include: materials relating to Garfinkel's study of correspondence received by California Governor Edmund G. (Pat) Brown regarding the criminal case of Caryl Chessman (executed on May 2, 1960) and issues regarding capital punishment; transcripts and audio recordings of UCLA course lectures by Garfinkel (Sociology Department); correspondence; speeches and presentations; reprints; research notes and data; and research proposals. Stored off-site. All requests to access special collections material must be made in advance using the request button located on this page. Language of Material: English . Conditions Governing Access Open for research. All requests to access special collections materials must be made in advance using the request button located on this page. -
Reflexivity at Work: Making Sense of Mannheim's, Garfinkel's, Gouldner's
Reflexivity at Work: Making Sense of Mannheim’s, Garfinkel’s, Gouldner’s, and Bourdieu’s Sociology by Christian Olivier Caron A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology Carleton University Ottawa, Canada ©2013 Christian Olivier Caron Library and Archives Bibliotheque et Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du 1+1 Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-94525-4 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-94525-4 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. -
"The Studies Are Probably the Best Thing That Garfinkel Ever Wrote"
Volume 20, No. 2, Art. 13 May 2019 "The Studies are Probably the Best Thing That Garfinkel Ever Wrote" Michael Lynch in Conversation With Dominik Gerst, Hannes Krämer & René Salomon Key words: Abstract: Michael LYNCH is widely known as one of the key figures of ethnomethodology. In this ethnomethodology; interview, he takes the discussion of GARFINKEL's "Studies in Ethnomethodology" (1967) as an conversation opportunity to take the reader back to California in the 1970s as he shares his personal story of analysis; history of how he became acquainted with Harold GARFINKEL and ethnomethodology as a radical approach American on the rise. LYNCH provides an account of ethnomethodology as a distinctive way of researching, sociology; science writing, talking; which stands in high contrast to conventional social sciences and, which not only and technology has been marginalized by the sociological mainstream at the time it came up, but may be seen as studies; endangered nowadays. As he says in the interview, the tense relationship between epistemics; ethnomethodology and conversation analysis as a robust field of inquiry can be traced back to this practice theory question as well. He reflects upon GARFINKELs central intellectual resources—namely phenomenology and the philosophy of WITTGENSTEIN—and shows how his own work embraces the relationships of ethnomethodology with science and technology studies and actor-network theory. Giving insights into how his work is driven by a confrontation of social theory and philosophy with empirical concreteness, LYNCH discusses concepts such as practice and knowledge which may be seen as in-between-phenomena within this confrontation. Finally, he suggests to continuously reread GARFINKEL's "Studies in Ethnomethodology" as the book provides a rich resource of ideas which especially become productive in light of own research.