Happy New Year!
Genevieve
>
>However, Garfinkel's later work has abandoned the original program in favor
>of what he calls "radical" inquiry (apparently, inquiry into the
>foundations of all possible inquiry). This appears to be centrally
>informed by Husserl's concern for the ground of knowing, but rather than
>pursue Husserl's introspective phenomenology, Garfinkel is interested in
>what he believes to be the unique situated practices of the individuals
>present in a given situation on which their knowledge of it is based and
>give it its sense of being "just this" occasion. Moreover, he expressly
>contrasts radical inquiry with ordinary empirical investigation as found in
>the natural and social sciences.
I would like to have an example of a) radical inquiry and
b) ordinary empirical investigation about here.
>
>Second, Mary Cotter and Chris Nelson are correct if what they have in mind
>is conversation analysis and the early program of ethnomethodology: ECA is
>more than simply a "methodology", though of course it has given rise to
>distinctive empirical techniques and analytic procedures. Rather, ECA is a
>substantive discipline, based on those techniques and procedures, having as
>the core of its subject matter the fundamental processes of human social
>organization wherever and whenever found, but including as well the
>adaptations of these processes in particular cultural and institutional
>settings.
Here we seem to be getting close to an object of inquiry, and it SOUNDS
rather macro or at least aiming towards macro-type aims (universals) --
so, what informs or situates that object of inquiry in that sense?
>Further, ECA is not a "micro-sociology" that can be appended to a
>"macro-sociological" theory, at least as this distinction is currently
>understood. ECA does not deny that members of society orient to, what is
>for them, a larger social world that is external to and constraining on
>their actions and which transcends any particular concrete situation.
>However, ECA treats this fact very differently than do standard approaches
>in the social sciences.
>
How does it treat this fact?
>Finally, I argued in my previous posting that ECA is not directed at the
>same order of question about human social life as standard social science,
>which makes the question connections even more complex.
>
What order of question about human social life is ECA directed at?
>Thomas P. Wilson
>Department of Sociology
>University of California
>Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9430
>USA
>
>Telephone: (805) 893-3344
> FAX: (805) 893-3324
> Internet: wilson who-is-at alishaw.ucsb.edu