Understanding Ethnomethodology – Harold Garfinkel

Introduction

Ethnomethodology, a sociological perspective developed by Harold Garfinkel in the 1960s, is the study of how people create and maintain social order in everyday life through their actions and interactions. This approach focuses on the methods (hence “methodology”) that individuals employ to make sense of their social world and to make their actions understandable to others.

Key aspects of ethnomethodology include:

1. Examination of social order production and maintenance in moment-to-moment interactions.
2. Emphasis on the active role of individuals in constructing social reality.
3. Uncovering the implicit, taken-for-granted rules that govern social interactions.

Ethnomethodology challenges traditional sociological approaches by shifting focus from macro-level social structures to micro-level interactions. It argues that social reality is not a fixed, external entity but a dynamic construction continuously created and recreated through human interaction.

Focus on Everyday Practices

Garfinkel argued that the most fundamental aspects of social order could be found in the most mundane, everyday interactions. He posited that by studying these routine practices, we could understand how larger social structures are created and maintained. This perspective represents a significant departure from the macro-sociological approaches prevalent at the time, which tended to focus on broad social institutions and structures.

Examples of everyday practices studied in ethnomethodology include:

1. Greeting rituals: Analyzing how people initiate, maintain, and conclude social encounters.
2. Turn-taking in conversations: Examining the subtle cues and rules that govern who speaks when in a conversation.
3. Navigation of public spaces: Investigating how people move through and interact in shared spaces like sidewalks or public transportation.
4. Queue management: Studying the unwritten rules of forming and maintaining waiting lines.

For instance, a study might examine how people maintain personal space on a crowded subway. Researchers would observe how individuals use body language, eye contact, and subtle movements to negotiate their space without explicit communication. This seemingly simple interaction reveals complex social norms and expectations that contribute to the overall social order.

Breaching Experiments

Breaching experiments are a unique research method developed by Garfinkel to reveal the underlying rules of social interaction. In these experiments, researchers deliberately violate social norms to observe how people react and to make visible the usually invisible rules of social life. This method is based on the idea that social norms become most apparent when they are violated.

Characteristics of breaching experiments include:

1. Disruption of the normal flow of social interactions.
2. Production of confusion, discomfort, or anger in participants.
3. Revelation of expectations people have about “normal” behavior.

A classic example of a breaching experiment is Garfinkel’s “boarder” experiment, where he asked his students to act as boarders in their own homes, treating family members with extreme formality. This experiment revealed the taken-for-granted expectations of familial relationships and the discomfort that arises when these expectations are violated.

Another example is the “bargaining experiment,” where researchers attempted to negotiate fixed prices in stores. This experiment exposed the unwritten rules of commercial transactions and the social norms surrounding monetary exchange.

These experiments, while ethically controversial, have provided valuable insights into the implicit rules that govern social interactions and the ways in which people respond when these rules are broken.

Indexicality

Indexicality is a key concept in ethnomethodology that refers to the context-dependent nature of language and actions. It suggests that the meaning of words and behaviors cannot be fully understood without reference to the specific context in which they occur. This concept challenges the idea of language as a system of fixed, universal meanings.

Key points of indexicality include:

1. Words and actions don’t have fixed meanings but depend on their context.
2. Understanding requires shared knowledge of the context.
3. It challenges the idea that language has universal, context-independent meanings.

For example, the phrase “That’s great” could be sincere praise or sarcastic criticism, depending on the context. The meaning is “indexed” to the situation, the speaker’s tone, the relationship between the speakers, and other contextual factors.

Another example is the use of pronouns like “it” or “that.” The meaning of these words is entirely dependent on the context of the conversation. Without shared knowledge of what “it” refers to, communication breaks down.

Indexicality has significant implications for social research, suggesting that to understand social interactions, we must pay close attention to the specific contexts in which they occur, rather than assuming universal meanings or behaviors.

Reflexivity

In ethnomethodology, reflexivity refers to the idea that descriptions of social reality not only describe but also construct that reality. It’s a circular process where our understanding of the world shapes our actions, and our actions in turn shape our understanding. This concept is fundamental to ethnomethodology’s view of social reality as an ongoing accomplishment rather than a static entity.

Key aspects of reflexivity include:

1. Social reality is continuously created through people’s actions and interpretations.
2. Descriptions of social situations are not separate from those situations but part of them.
3. It challenges the idea of an objective, independent social reality.

For example, when a teacher describes a student as “disruptive,” this description doesn’t just label an objective reality. Instead, it contributes to creating that reality by influencing how others perceive and interact with the student, potentially reinforcing the “disruptive” behavior.

Another example is how scientific theories shape our understanding of the world, which in turn influences the questions we ask and the observations we make, potentially reinforcing or modifying those theories.

Reflexivity has profound implications for social research, suggesting that researchers must be aware of how their own actions and interpretations contribute to the social realities they study.

Accountability

Accountability in ethnomethodology refers to the ways in which people make their actions understandable, or “account-able,” to others. It’s about how individuals ensure their behavior is recognizable and explicable within a given social context. This concept is crucial to understanding how social order is maintained through everyday interactions.

Key points of accountability include:

1. People constantly monitor and adjust their behavior to fit social expectations.
2. Actions are designed to be “visibly-rational-and-reportable-for-all-practical-purposes.”
3. Accountability helps maintain social order by making behavior predictable and interpretable.

For example, when someone arrives late to a meeting, they typically offer an explanation (an “account”) for their tardiness. This account makes their behavior understandable and helps maintain the social order of the meeting.

Another example is how people modify their language and behavior in different social contexts (e.g., professional vs. casual settings) to ensure their actions are appropriate and intelligible to others in that context.

Accountability is closely linked to the concept of “face” in sociology and anthropology, referring to the public self-image that individuals strive to maintain in social interactions.

Critique of Traditional Sociology

Garfinkel’s work represented a significant departure from traditional sociological approaches. He criticized mainstream sociology for several reasons:

1. Treating social facts as objective, external realities: Garfinkel argued that social facts are not fixed entities but are continually produced through social interaction.
2. Overlooking the active role of individuals in creating social order: Traditional sociology often viewed individuals as passive recipients of social norms, while ethnomethodology emphasizes their active role in creating and maintaining social order.
3. Relying too heavily on abstract theories and statistical methods: Garfinkel advocated for detailed observation of actual social interactions rather than relying on abstract theorizing or quantitative data alone.

Instead, ethnomethodology proposed:

1. A focus on how people actively construct and maintain social reality: This approach views social order as an ongoing accomplishment rather than a static structure.
2. Detailed observation of actual social interactions: Ethnomethodology emphasizes the importance of studying real-world interactions in their natural settings.
3. An emphasis on the practical reasoning used by people in everyday life: This approach seeks to understand the methods people use to make sense of their social world.

For example, while traditional sociology might study crime rates and develop theories about the causes of crime, an ethnomethodological approach might examine how people in a neighborhood identify and respond to “suspicious” behavior, revealing the social processes through which the category of “crime” is constructed and managed in everyday life.

Influence on Other Fields

Ethnomethodology has had a significant impact beyond sociology, influencing various disciplines and areas of study:

1. Anthropology: Ethnomethodology has influenced studies of how cultural knowledge is used in everyday interactions. For example, it has informed research on how cultural norms are enacted and negotiated in cross-cultural encounters.
2. Linguistics: It contributed to the development of conversation analysis and pragmatics. These fields examine how meaning is created and negotiated in actual language use, rather than studying language as an abstract system.
3. Human-Computer Interaction (HCI): Ethnomethodological insights have informed designs of more intuitive and context-aware interfaces. For instance, HCI researchers have used ethnomethodological approaches to study how users interact with technology in real-world settings, leading to more user-friendly designs.
4. Education: Ethnomethodology has influenced studies of classroom interactions and learning processes. Researchers have examined how students and teachers create shared understandings and how learning is accomplished as a social process.
5. Organizational Studies: It has shaped research on how organizational routines and cultures are maintained. For example, studies have examined how employees make sense of and enact organizational policies in their daily work practices.

The influence of ethnomethodology in these fields demonstrates its versatility and the broad applicability of its insights into social interaction and the construction of social reality.

Conversation Analysis

Conversation Analysis (CA) emerged from ethnomethodology, primarily through the work of Harvey Sacks, a student of Garfinkel. CA is a method for studying talk-in-interaction, focusing on the structures and patterns of conversation. It shares ethnomethodology’s commitment to studying social life as it happens in real-time interactions.

Key features of CA include:

1. Detailed transcription and analysis of naturally occurring conversations: CA researchers use specialized transcription systems to capture not just words, but also features like pauses, overlaps, and intonation.
2. Focus on turn-taking, repair mechanisms, and sequence organization in talk: CA examines how conversations are structured, how people manage speaking turns, and how they deal with misunderstandings or communication problems.
3. Emphasis on how social actions are accomplished through talk: CA views conversation as a primary means through which people perform social actions, such as making requests, offering invitations, or delivering bad news.

For example, a CA study might examine how doctors deliver diagnoses to patients, analyzing the specific linguistic and interactional techniques used to convey information, manage emotions, and maintain professional relationships.

Another example could be a study of how people initiate and terminate phone conversations, revealing the subtle social norms that govern these everyday interactions.

CA has been influential in fields such as sociology, linguistics, and communication studies, providing insights into the fine-grained details of how social interaction is organized and accomplished through talk.

Legacy and Ongoing Influence

While initially controversial, ethnomethodology has become an established approach in sociology and continues to influence social research:

1. It has contributed to a more nuanced understanding of how social order is created and maintained, emphasizing the active role of individuals in this process.
2. Its methods have been incorporated into various qualitative research approaches, influencing how researchers observe and analyze social interactions.
3. It has challenged researchers to pay closer attention to the details of social interaction, leading to more fine-grained analyses of social phenomena.
4. Its insights have been applied in fields ranging from artificial intelligence to conflict resolution. For example, in AI, ethnomethodological insights have informed the development of more natural language processing systems.

Challenges and criticisms of ethnomethodology include:

1. Some argue that its focus on micro-interactions neglects larger social structures and power dynamics. Critics contend that by focusing on immediate interactions, ethnomethodology may overlook broader social forces that shape those interactions.
2. Its methods can be time-consuming and difficult to apply to large-scale social phenomena. The detailed analysis required by ethnomethodological approaches can be challenging to scale up to study broader social trends.
3. There have been debates about the generalizability of findings from ethnomethodological studies. Since these studies often focus on specific, localized interactions, some question how widely their findings can be applied.

Despite these challenges, ethnomethodology continues to offer valuable insights into the workings of social life. Its emphasis on the detailed study of everyday interactions provides a unique perspective on how social order is accomplished and maintained. As society continues to evolve, particularly with the rise of digital communication and virtual interactions, ethnomethodological approaches may offer new insights into how social reality is constructed and maintained in these novel contexts.

In conclusion, ethnomethodology represents a significant contribution to sociological thought, challenging traditional approaches and offering new ways to understand the intricate processes through which social life is accomplished. Its influence extends beyond sociology, informing various fields of study and continuing to provide valuable insights into the nature of social interaction and the construction of social reality.

References:

1. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

2. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

3. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.

4. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5. Maynard, D. W., & Clayman, S. E. (1991). The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 17(1), 385-418.