Difference between revisions of "Lidz1978"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Charles W. Lidz |Title=Conspiracy, Paranoia and the Problem of Knowledge |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Paranoia; Reflexivity; |K...") |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 09:40, 12 January 2018
| Lidz1978 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Lidz1978 |
| Author(s) | Charles W. Lidz |
| Title | Conspiracy, Paranoia and the Problem of Knowledge |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Paranoia, Reflexivity |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1978 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Qualitative Sociology |
| Volume | 1 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 3–20 |
| URL | |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
ABSTRACT Using a case study, this paper presents a critique of Lemert's classic paper, "Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion." Starting from the position that Lemert did not prove his case, that in fact, there are no clear-cut grounds for determining whether an event called a conspiracy really exists, this case study leads to a consideration of the ethnomethodological notion of reflexivity of common sense knowledge.
Notes
see also: Jay Corzine On the nature of paranoia (comment on Lidz,QS September, 1978) Qualitative Sociology 2 (1979): 104-7 and Charles W. Lidz What Did Lemert Mean and Does It Matter: A Reply to Corzine Qualitative Sociology 2 (1979): 108-9
