Ethnomethodology and Atypical Interaction

Abstract

AbstractDespite its dependency on common-sense knowledge, sociology as a field has yet to confront the fact that there simply is no time out from its use at any level of practical endeavor, including the most sophisticated theoretical and methodological efforts of scientific activity itself. The theme of this chapter is to suggest why the wider discipline could benefit from increased ethnomethodological inquiry, and to demonstrate just how such inquiry and its offshoot, conversation analysis (CA), contribute to the profession and larger society. Such endeavors were well within the realm of Garfinkel’s own ambitions. To get at the devices of commonsense, Garfinkel’s (1967: 37) stated preference was to “start with familiar scenes and ask what can be done to make trouble”—for example, directing his students to question what their friends, acquaintances, or partners meant by the most commonplace remarks. However, that strategy leaves uninvestigated more naturalistic breaches and the forms of reasoning on the part of so-called trouble-makers—i.e., those whose conduct threatens what we otherwise take for granted. Ethnomethodological studies of disability and atypical interaction may provide access to forms of reasoning that have an integrity in their own right. This chapter, with a specific focus on autism spectrum disorder, shows how the actions of children being tested and diagnosed may challenge the commonsense order of clinical reasoning. Such conduct provides opportunities for common-sense actors, whether professional or lay, to alter or expand their repertoires of reasoning. Entering and comprehending the world of the “other” also expands the parameters of local social arrangements themselves.