As Mason (2018, p. 34) writes, “questions about whether qualitative data can constitute ‘evidence’, and about how the quality of qualitative research can be judged, are particularly fraught ones.” This blogpost looks at one approach to research —ethnomethodology —and considers how “evidence” has been discussed.
Harold Garfinkel developed an approach to the study of social order that he called “ethnomethodology.” Rawls (2002, pp. 4-5) describes how Garfinkel generated the term in 1954. While preparing for a presentation of work on jury deliberations for the American Sociological Association meeting, he came across the Yale Human Area Relations files (with files labelled “ethnoscience”, “ethnobotany” etc.) referring to people. He took “ethno” and added “methodology” – referring to “the theory of corret decisions in deciding the grounds of action and further inference” (Felix Kauffman, cited by Rawls, 2002, p. 5). Simply put, ethnomethodology (EM) refers to the study of “members’ methods.”
Garfinkel’s colleagues questioned him repeatedly about what ethnomethodology treated as “evidence.” This is not unique to EM studies, however, since discussion of what counts as evidence in qualitative inquiry has also been a topic of recent debates. The interest in determining what counts as “evidence” in ethnomethodology is found in the Proceedings of the Purdue Symposium on Ethnomethodology:
HILL: Hal (Garfinkel), you have not told us yet what rules of evidence you accept or employ (Hill & Crittenden, 1968, p. 27).
HILL: You have to be able to tell us how you make such distinctions in terms of decision rules. I believe this illustrates a kind of question many of us have with regard to how one presents a warrant for the evidence that one uses to reach a decision (Hill & Crittenden, 1968, p. 28).
DEFLEUR: How do you reject a thing? What are the rules of evidence on which you reject or accept an explanation? (Hill & Crittenden, 1968, p. 40).
(Proceedings of the Purdue Symposium on Ethnomethodology, Hill & Crittenden, 1968, Also cited by Lynch, 1991, p. 89).
This interest in determining what counts as evidence reflects the centrality of evidence and inferences to the enterprise of doing “scientific research” and why discussions of “evidence” are “fraught” (to quote Mason, 2018). Benson and Hughes (1991, p. 127) write that Harold Garfinkel and Harvey Sacks repeatedly pointed out that “an indispensable feature of any science is to describe its phenomena as faithfully, as rigorously and as formally as possible. It is this which gives the issues of evidence and inference their point.”
Over the last five decades, ethnomethodologists, following the examples provided by Harold Garfinkel, have re-specified topics of research (Garfinkel, 1991), including:
issues of evidence and inference by recognizing these as themselves issues in practical reasoning. ‘Inferring’, ‘providing evidence for’, ‘describing’, and so on, are features of members’ own methods for rendering the sense of activities and, as such, orderly properties of interaction…..what counts as a ‘warranted inference’, ‘evidence for’, and adequate ‘description’, is a matter of investigation for ethnomethodology (Benson & Hughes, 1991, p. 129).
In EM studies, we see demonstrations of practical action and practical reasoning (Garfinkel, 1967), examples of the documentary method of interpretation (Hak, 1998; Smith, 1990) and tutorial problems (Garfinkel, 2002), studies of work (Heath, Knoblauch, & Luff, 2000), and examinations of how members orient to instructed actions (Garfinkel, 1967; 2002). Some of this work has dealt specifically with the work of “doing science”; for example examining in detail the local and contingent work of scientific discovery (Garfinkel, Lynch & Livingston, 1981), coders’ application of coding schemes in social science research (Garfinkel, 1967), or doing the work of physics (Sormani, 2016). In EM, examinations of how people use evidence to accomplish and order activities in their everyday lives – whether in doing the work of the natural and social sciences, or in more mundane tasks – is itself a topic of investigation.
Ethnomethodology is a wide-ranging enterprise, taken up across disciplines in many different ways, including text analysis, conversation analysis (CA) and membership categorization analysis (MCA) (Eglin & Hester, 1999; Jayyusi, 1991), among other approaches. How have researchers taken up EM in education, to take but one discipline among many, including communication studies, applied linguistics and medical sociology? What forms of “evidence” are used?
Given that there are few explicit guidelines in the work of Garfinkel for how EM should be undertaken, and that his own body of work is varied in topic and approach, it is perhaps not surprising that the greatest application of ethnomethodological principles in education has been via CA – an area in which much methodological advice has been published. Various reviews of ethomethodology and conversation analysis in the field of education have outlined topics studied (Baker, 1997; Gardner, 2013; Heap, 1997; Hester & Francis, 2000; Watson, 1992), and examples of studies are found in the literature (e.g., Bullough Jr., 2010; Kim & Silver, 2016; MacBeth, 1990, 1991, 1992; McHoul, 1978, 1990; Mehan, 1979). These include analyses of classroom talk, post-observation conferences, and assessment of pre-service teachers’ work samples.
Data displays in publications from this research demonstrate researchers’ preference for:
(1) studies of naturalistic settings — actual events in institutional or naturally-occurring settings, rather than researcher-generated data such as interviews;
(2) studies focusing on mundane and everyday activities; and
(3) detailed transcriptions of audio- and/or video-recorded talk-in-interaction that is
(4) presented in sequential context.
A smaller number of studies show the use of descriptive procedures and other sources of data to demonstrate worksite practices (e.g. Livingston’s (2000) use of origami to examine instruction in mathematics; and Austin, Dwyer & Freebody’s (2003) examination of texts as well as classroom interaction to investigate the enactment of childhood in schools). Although some work also relies on ethnographic fieldwork (see for example, (Hemmings, Randall, Marr, & Francis, 2000), Heap (1997, p. 220) cautions that ethnographic fieldnotes
are of use primarily to identify speakers and to record any features of the setting which may be expected to bear on the adequacy of the description and resulting analyses, e.g., off-camera events to which speakers display an orientation. Fieldnotes are of no use for recording data. Information about research settings that is not available to the data themselves, e.g., speakers’ mental states or scores on standardized tests, is not to be used by analysts, unless it can be shown that parties to the interaction apparently orient to this information.
Still, Pollner and Emerson (2001) take a more positive view of the relationship between EM and ethnography, suggesting that former boundaries are now “blurred” (p. 118).
Not mentioned here is the research interview as evidence. Although EM scholars typically do not examine interview data, that does not mean this has not been done. Garfinkel (1967), in his study of “Agnes”, a male-to-female transgender person, drew on interview data among other data. Other scholars have also examined the construction of research interviews — including standardized and qualitative interviews (e.g., Baker, 1983; Suchman & Jordan, 1990; for a review, see Roulston, 2006). A growing body of research on interaction in research interviews is deserving of another blogpost.
To reiterate, ethnomethodological analyses focus on locating evidence in the data to show how members to the interaction understood and oriented to events and actions. That is, what do parties to the interaction show this activity to be? What resources did they use to accomplish this activity? Given that researchers use transcriptions in conjunction with audio- and video-recordings, their claims are open to checking by others. Watson (1992, p. 262) argues that naturalistic data of this sort allow for “rigorous, exhaustive, repeated and reduplicable analytic inspection which in turn could sustain systematically demonstrated statements that were amenable to ‘checking out’ by others.” Analysts produce descriptions of the resources by which people involved in social interactions routinely structure their activities that provide understanding of the possible ways people organize them (Heap, 1984).
Yet, given the procedures described above, there is still an open-ness in ethnomethodological work to allow for different ways of doing things. Lynch (1991, p. 105), for example, cautions against attempts to “delimit what scientific methods must be in order to be scientific.” He adds, that ethnomethodology “warns against the kind of self-imposed exile from interesting phenomena entailed by too ‘rigorous’ an adherence to preconceptions about what ‘data’ must look like in order to stand as records of ‘actual’ social activities, or what ‘analysis’ must involve in order to surpass mere ‘intuition’” (Lynch, 1991, p. 105).
Following the Purdue Symposium on Ethnomethodology, Hill and Crittenden noted in their Epilogue that “one recurrent theme in the discussions stemmed from lack of consensus regarding rules of evidence” (1968, p. 258). Fifty years on, in the social sciences, there is still a lack of consensus. Perhaps things are just as they should be.
Austin, H., Dwyer, B., & Freebody, P. (2003). Schooling the child: The making of students in classroom. London & New York: Routledge Falmer.
Baker, C. D. (1983). A ‘second look ‘ at interviews with adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12(6), 501-519.
Baker, C. (1997). Ethnomethodological studies of talk in educational settings In B. Davies & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 3: Oral Discourse and education, pp. 43-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Benson, D., & Hughes, J. (1991). Method: Evidence and inference — Evidence and inference for ethnomethodology. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 109-136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bullough Jr., R. V. (2010). Proceed with caution: Interactive rules and teacher work sample scoring strategies, an ethnomethodological study. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 775-810.
Eglin, P., & Hester, S. (1999). Moral order and the Montreal massacre: A story of membership categorization analysis. In P. Jalbert (Ed.), Media studies: Ethnomethodological approaches (pp. 195-230). Lanham: University Press of America.
Gardner, R. (2013). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 593-611). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (1991). Respecification: Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in and as of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society, (I) – an announcement of studies. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 10-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2), 131-158.
Hak, T. (1998). “There are clear delusions.” The production of a factual account. Human Studies, 21, 419-436.
Heap, J. L. (1984). Ethnomethodology and education: Possibilities. The Journal of Educational Thought, 18(3), 168-171.
Heap, J. L. (1997). Conversation analysis methods in researching language and education. In N. H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 8: Research methods in language and education, pp. 217-225). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Heath, C., Knoblauch, H., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology and social interaction: The emergence of ‘workplace studies’. British Journal of Sociology, 51(2), 299-320.
Hemmings, T., Randall, D., Marr, L., & Francis, D. (2000). Task, talk and closure: Situated learning and the use of an ‘interactive’ museum artifact. In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Local educational order: Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action (pp. 223-244). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Hester, S., & Francis, D. W. (2000). Ethnomethodology and local educational order. In S. Hester & D. W. Francis (Eds.), Local educational order: Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action (pp. 1-20). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hill, R. J., & Critten, K. S. (Eds.). (1968). Proceedings of the Purdue Symposium on ethnomethodology. Institute Monograph Series, No. 1, Purdue, IN: Institue for the Study of Social Change, Departement of Sociology, Purdue University. Accessed 23 March 2007, http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/aiem/purdue.pdf
Jayyusi, L. (1991). The equivocal text and the objective world: An ethnomethodological analysis of a news report. Continuum, 5(1), 166-190.
Kim, Y., & Silver, R. E. (2016). Provoking reflective thinking in post observation conversations. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(3), 203-219. doi:10.1177/0022487116637120
Livingston, E. (2000). The availability of mathematics as an inspectable domain of practice through the use of origami. In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Local educational order: Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action (pp. 245-270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lynch, M. (1991). Method: Measurement — ordinary and scientific measurement as ethnomethodological phenomena. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 77-108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacBeth, D. (1990). Classroom order as practical action: The making and un-making of a quiet reproach. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(2), 189-214.
Macbeth, D. (1991). Teacher authority as practical action. Linguistics and Education, 3(281-313).
Macbeth, D. (1992). Classroom “floors”: Material organizations as a course of affairs. Qualitative Sociology, 15(2), 123.
Mason, J. (2018). Qualitative researching (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183-213.
McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society, 19, 349-377.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pollner, M., & Emerson, R. M. (2001). Ethnomethodology and ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 118-135). London: Sage.
Rawls, A. W. (2002). Editor’s introduction. In A. W. Rawls (Ed.), Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism (pp. 1-64). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Roulston, K. (2006). Close encounters of the ‘CA’ kind: a review of literature analysing talk in research interviews. Qualitative Research, 6(4), 515-534. doi:10.1177/1468794106068021
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Smith, D. E. (1990). K is mentally ill: The anatomy of a factual account Texts, facts, and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling (pp. 12-52). London: Routledge.
Sormani, P. (2014). Respecifying lab ethnography: An ethnomethodological study of experimental physics. New York & London: Routledge.
Suchman, L., & Jordan, B. (1990). Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85(409), 232-253.
Watson, D. R. (1992). Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and education: An overview. International Review of Education, 38(3), 257-274.