Difference between revisions of "Zaunbrecher2018"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Nicolas j. Zaunbrecher |Title=Viewing Spontaneity Ethnomethodologically |Tag(s)=EMCA; Spontaneity; Improvisation; Ethnomethodology; Rhet...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Nicolas j. Zaunbrecher | |Author(s)=Nicolas j. Zaunbrecher | ||
| − | |Title=Viewing | + | |Title=Viewing spontaneity ethnomethodologically |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Spontaneity; Improvisation; Ethnomethodology; Rhetorical analysis; Improvisational theatre; | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Spontaneity; Improvisation; Ethnomethodology; Rhetorical analysis; Improvisational theatre; | ||
|Key=Zaunbrecher2018 | |Key=Zaunbrecher2018 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=41 | |Volume=41 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=1–20 |
| − | | | + | |URL=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10746-017-9442-8 |
| − | |Abstract= | + | |DOI=10.1007/s10746-017-9442-8 |
| − | + | |Abstract=In this article, I identify “spontaneity” as a significant but poorly-analyzed term in social theory and description through an overview of tensions between varying technical accounts of spontaneity in research literature. In contrast to conceptually-slippery “realist” accounts of spontaneity, I argue for viewing spontaneity ethnomethodologically, i.e., as a contextually-emergent social practice. I suggest two directions for future applications of this approach: first, an ethnomethodological approach to rhetorical analysis of unanalyzed use of the term “spontaneity” in research literature, and second, observational studies of improvisational theatre, a social practice in which orientation toward the production of spontaneity by participants is criterial to the identity of the practice. | |
| − | varying technical accounts of spontaneity in research literature. In contrast to | ||
| − | conceptually-slippery | ||
| − | |||
| − | suggest two directions for future applications of this approach: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | spontaneity by participants is criterial to the identity of the practice. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:22, 11 January 2020
| Zaunbrecher2018 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Zaunbrecher2018 |
| Author(s) | Nicolas j. Zaunbrecher |
| Title | Viewing spontaneity ethnomethodologically |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Spontaneity, Improvisation, Ethnomethodology, Rhetorical analysis, Improvisational theatre |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2018 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Human Studies |
| Volume | 41 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 1–20 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/s10746-017-9442-8 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this article, I identify “spontaneity” as a significant but poorly-analyzed term in social theory and description through an overview of tensions between varying technical accounts of spontaneity in research literature. In contrast to conceptually-slippery “realist” accounts of spontaneity, I argue for viewing spontaneity ethnomethodologically, i.e., as a contextually-emergent social practice. I suggest two directions for future applications of this approach: first, an ethnomethodological approach to rhetorical analysis of unanalyzed use of the term “spontaneity” in research literature, and second, observational studies of improvisational theatre, a social practice in which orientation toward the production of spontaneity by participants is criterial to the identity of the practice.
Notes
