Producing order
Garfinkel (1967) treats order as an ongoing accomplishment, with indexicality and accountability; Heritage (1984) explains.
Breaching and conversation
Breaching experiments (Garfinkel, 1964) exposed hidden rules; Sacks et al. (1974) built conversation analysis.
Comparisons and critiques
Unlike symbolic interactionism or Goffman's dramaturgy; Maynard and Clayman (1991); critics cite neglect of power and Pollner (1991).
FAQ
- What is it in simple terms?
- Studying the everyday methods people use to make sense together.
- Is it about ethnic groups?
- No, 'ethno' means people's own methods.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall. The founding work introducing accountability and indexicality.
- Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11(3), 225–250. Introduces breaching experiments that disrupt taken-for-granted rules.
- Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press. A systematic guide to Garfinkel's thought.
- Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. The landmark conversation-analysis paper on turn-taking.
- Maynard, D. W., & Clayman, S. E. (1991). The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 385–418. A review mapping the field's diverse strands.
- Pollner, M. (1991). Left of ethnomethodology: The rise and decline of radical reflexivity. American Sociological Review, 56(3), 370–380. Argues early radical reflexivity faded, an internal critique.
- Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday. A neighbouring dramaturgical approach to everyday interaction.