Ethnomethodology’s Legacies and Prospects

Abstract

AbstractHarold Garfinkel's Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967) was published a little more than 50 years ago. Since then, there has been a substantial—although often subterranean—growth in ethnomethodological work and influence. Studies in and appreciation of ethnomethodological work continue to grow, but the breadth and penetration of his insights and inspiration for ongoing research have yet to secure their full measure of recognition. The first part of this chapter reviews the development of Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology, whose origins include both the theorizing of Parsonian sociology and the phenomenology of Alfred Schütz. The authors discuss ethnomethodology’s orientation to the trust conditions making for a stable society, the “documentary method of interpretation,” rules and rule usage, and phenomena of language use and accountability. The second part of the chapter describes ethnomethodology’s legacies—its contributions to such areas or subdisciplines as conversation analysis (CA) and membership categorization analysis (MCA), its distinctive forms of ethnographic inquiry, and its influences on a host of substantive domains. These domains include legal environments, science and technology, workplace and organizational inquiries, survey research, social problems and deviance, disability and atypical interaction, and others. Ethnomethodology especially helped to set the agenda for gender studies, while also developing insights for inquiries into racial and ethnic features of everyday life and experience. Still, there is much of what Garfinkel called “unfinished business,” which means that ethnomethodological inquiries are continuing to intensify and develop.