Livingston2026
| Livingston2026 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Livingston2026 |
| Author(s) | Eric Livingston |
| Title | Two Ethnomethodologies: A Comment on Lynch’s Vision of Ethnomethodology in “Promise and Silence” |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, In press, Outsider ethnomethodology, The Rendering Theorem, Legwork, The discovering sciences, Incipient gestalts, The ethnomethodological project, Ethnomethodology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2026 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Human Studies |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/s10746-026-09851-3 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In my first reply to Lynch’s “Promise and Silence,” I stressed the major themes of my earlier paper “Ethnomethodology’s Broken Promise”—the failings of ethnomethodological field studies and ways that such shortcomings are ignored, glossed over, or hidden. I considered clarifying this material as being of first importance. On the other hand, Lynch’s paper is written from within a disciplinary approach to the ethnomethodological project. The present comment presents 1970s UCLA ethnomethodology as a foil to understand better the background and misleading character of Lynch’s critique.
Notes
