2017/11/25 by Ten Have, Paul
#Ethnomethodologie #Forschung #Methode #Objektivität #Subjektivität #ethnomethodology #method #objectivity #research #subjectivity
paper · doi:10.12759/hsr.30.2005.1.28-53
In ethnomethodological inquiries, the tension between"subjectivity" and "objectivity" which is inherent inall qualitative social research, takes special meanings. Infact, those terms are rarely used in ethnomethodological researchreports, or methodological writings. What is widelyimplied and often explicitly recognised, however, is that anethnomethodologist has to "understand" the practices studied,before they can be analysed, and that this "understanding"involves the researcher using his or her "membershipknowledge". In a way, this unavoidable use of membershipknowledge for understanding what people are doing, is thenturned from a implicit resource into an explicit topic foranalysis. This can be illustrated by a consideration of thetwo research strategies for which ethnomethodology has become(ill-) famous, the "breaching experiments" initiated byits founder Harold GARFINKEL, and the use of recordingsand transcripts of verbal interaction by ethno-methodology'smost successful off-shoot, Conversation Analysis as initiatedby Harvey SACKS. Varieties of a third strategy, ethnography,including the ethnography of specific (sub-) culturalpractices, of technology use, and auto-ethnography, will alsobe discussed for its