Talk:Ethnomethodology

message: The sociology window has ethnomethodology under methods, but it is at least as relevant to theoretical concerns. I'm not sure how to change this. Jalfro 09:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnomethodology's position in sociology

message: Useful information:
Durkheims Aphorism comes from: The Rules of Sociological Method, ed. Steven Lukes (New York, Free Press 1895), S.45): "Very often the disagreements were due to the refusal to admit at all, or to admit with reservations, our basic principle, that of the objective reality of social facts. It is therefore upon this principle that in the end everything rests, and everything comes back to." - via an ethnomethodological mailing list. --Vintagesound 10:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As an early fan of ethnomethodology (without credentials), I found this to be a well-written description of the area.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.207.7 (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fine description of ethnomethodolgy 

message: This article has far more citations than the Wikipedia entries for "Symbolic Interactionism", "Structural Functionalism", and/or "Social Psychology" - yet only Structural Functionalism has a red flag; that article contains no in-line citations or pagination. The latter half of the entry for "Sociology" dealing with modern versions of Sociology has only one citation. THIS ARTICLE NOW CONTAINS 46 CITATIONS. We would humbly submit that this is now the best documented site on Wikipedia dealing with the social sciences.
:The above statement is quite accurate, and I have removed the 'citations missing' template. In future, when you see that an article contains an inappropriate template, you can always remove it yourself. Terraxos (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However the citations are very confusing. What format is this? (Author:Year)? (Not Chicago, APA, or AAA) And why, when Garfinkel and Rawls is being cited, is the ref to Garflinkel:2002, which is co-authored? --Reagle (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

text: ASA (Author:Year:Page). To the best of my knowledge, the Rawls bits are authored by Rawls, as appearing in Garfinkel. The text is credited to Garfinkel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 02:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CITATIONS NEEDED?

message: There are a number of reasons why ethnomethodology is so difficult to understand: [1] there is no unified ethnomethodological theory; [2] there is no agreed upon ethnomethodological method; [3] there are no independent criteria, other than that of authority, for the evaluation of ethnomethodological studies; [4] Garfinkel's writings are generally impenetrable for the student as they have now become so complex in terms of references that reading all of the sources referenced has becomes increasingly unrealistic; [5] Garfinkel's writings are generally impenetrable for the professional sociologist as they are counterintuitive relative to his/her training; [6] Garfinkel's writings are inconsistent in their use of terminology and formulation; [7] Garfinkel's writing style is completely idiosyncratic and convoluted to the point of being occaisionally incoherent - despite his adherents defense, there is really no excuse for this type of prose style; [8] references are made to authors who are generally outside of the general mainstream of sociology; [9] references to outside authors in philosophy are not to their systems, but to fragments of their systems, resulting in confusion as to how far ethnomethodology's use of these authors ideas extends to the rest of their theoretical systems; [10] ethnomethodologists rarely, if ever, provide critical commentary on Garfinkel's writings in fear of earning his displeasure and being deleted from the periodic lists of "approved" ethnomethodologists appearing in his texts; [11] ethnomethodology as a policy eschews discussion of theory, and hence any discussion of theoretical foundations; [12] ethnomethodology denies that it has a methodology of its own, thus avoiding having to work out a methodology of its own.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 14:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WHY IS ETHNOMETHODOLOGY SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?

message: Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that the three roots are ethnos, methodos and logos? I am not really sure about this, but if this is the case, than it would make more sense the split the word into the three parts ethno-methodo-logy. Wouldn’t it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozean (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ethno-method-o-logy

message: The question is: how do you know this? Did you do a survey of all ethnomethodologists? I would suggest that in the absence of any supporting data to support this formulation, you revert to the original sentence construction.
:Please do not delete the comments of others on the talk page. For talk page policy see: Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. In a case like this (where the comment has been addressed and the entry seems to be not necessary anymore), you might just want to reply to the comment with a comment of your own, e.g. something like “This has been addressed in today’s revision.” This would make the history of this article easier to understand.
:In addition to this comment about talk page policy in general, I would also like to reformulate the original writer’s comment and generalize it to apply it to the whole article: I think the edits made by the two/three anonymous IPs (161.185.xxx.xxx, 68.198.221.218 and the “late” ASchutz) are really enhancing the quality of this article. I am deeply impressed by the amount of work that you invest for this article. However, the style of the article often seems strange for an encyclopedia. Formulations like the above “Ethnomethodologist's tend”, or others like “We use these authors rather than Garfinkel”, “Note that…” suggest some (authoritative, insider) person lecturing/teaching those who read the article. I think it would enhance the quality of the article if these kinds of statements could be evaded/changed. If I read the entry like it is now, it sounds more like an article for a journal, written by some ominous insider figure that claims particularly close insight into the workings and relations of those who do EM. I do not want to interrupt your work on the article, therefore I did not make any edits – in particular because there seems to be a team at work here. Since this team is so productive, I don't want to break the workflow.
:The article has been enriched by many helpful citations – however, on some critical statements (critical because they express judgements), no source or (that would be the alternative) reason is given. An outstanding example is “Garfinkel's writing style has been described by some as abstruse, convoluted, and obscure in terms of both meaning and reference. Others have maintained that it is adequate to the task at hand, and unavoidable given the phenomena being described. Some maintain that it has gotten better over time, others maintain that it has gotten worse. Most have given up such arguments and accepted it for what it is.” I agree with the statement and I find the conclusion quite witty and entertaining, but I also find this problematic because it differs so greatly from what is the commonly accepted style of wikipedia. (And as ethnomethodologists we all know about member’s rules…)
:Finally, I want say once more that this comment is intended as sympathetic feedback for the two anonymous editors and User:ASchutz. By the way: I sometimes have a hard time keeping in mind which number/person does what kind of edits - why don’t you register an account  at the wikipedia and use it to submit you edits? That would make keeping track for all involved much easier! --ozean (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. ozean (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Garfinkel's writing style: "Ethnomethodologist's tend..."

message: Social order of [surfing] = ways of [surfing] = "ways of being". 
"...we shall speak of the constitution of Dasein and always mean by it "in its way to be"." [Martin Heidegger:1992:155].  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnomethodology's Interest [Social Orders]: A Certain Parallel with Heideggerian Phenomenology

message: Since things seem to be getting worse, I feel the need for getting things back into shape. First, I have to insist that I find the tone of ASchutz’s comments here very inappropriate. I did not feel compelled to support some of ASchutz’s claims because of this inadequacy of manner. Since the wikipedia – in contrast to other formats – relies on productive collaboration, this is not only an important but a necessary ingredient of good articles. (This is not necessarily true for other ways of publication, but experience tells us it is if you want to sustain a reasonably good quality in an article with more than one or two contributors.)
However, my impression is that the contributions of ASchutz and anonymous IPs have over the course of the last few months vastly improved this article. To be precise: the content of the edits is in what appears to me to be the “true” spirit of ethnomethodology – if there is such a thing. At the same time, I felt a bit uneasy about the edits (as I stated earlier on this page), because the style of the edits is not really according to what many people here will perceive as being adequate for the wikipedia: some very authoritative statements are given without a reference by some unknown “we”-collective. Because of that, it can be argued that this article presents “original research”, not a collection of data from outside the wikipedia. In a way, I guess this critique is justified. But, now that I have seen some of the edits that have recently been made by Jonathanbishop, the opposite has happened: we have referenced statements from different kinds of articles, overview chapters etc. spanning several decades. Do these references give a better account of what EM is about? I do not think this is the case when one looks at some of the more important edits (for example the much contested introductory sentences).
I think we’re in a difficult situation here. ASchutz has raised the level of emotional involvement to such a degree that I guess reasonable discussion and compromises are difficult to attain. Jonathanbishop has to be praised for keeping away from derogatory statements. At the same time, I can see how his style of using technicalities and keeping to formal codes gives his position formal power that might not be adequate to the power of arguments relating to EM.
My proposition is probably not at all unexpected: cut yourselves some slack, take a step back, look at each other’s arguments blablabla. And for ASchutz (and anonymous IPs), whose understanding of EM is impressive to me: I would be much happier if we can find a different tone for the talk page!
I guess I will, in the course of the next few days, try to make a suggestion for the opening lines which we can discuss here on the talk page before changing it in the article. In addition, I would approve of reworking the section “Differences between sociology and ethnomethodology” a bit so that it reflects the differences in how EM is placed with regard to sociology more clearly. I find it rather obvious that (a) some sociologists will think EM has nothing to do with “real” sociology, (b) some EM-proponents will think that what they do is what sociology really is about, (c) that many people think that EM is just one of many, many, many different approaches (with regards to both theory and methods) in sociology, (d) that some people will think EM is some strange variation of ethnography, (e) that EM is just a set of sociological methods like many others (probably on the same level as participant observation or something similar), (f) (g) … and so on and so forth – all of these might have stated their understanding of EM in scholarly articles, some of which might be published in established journals. For the readers of this article, it would be helpful to point out who says what (i.e. what is the position of Garfinkel as opposed to the position of X, what is a judgement that has been made in some strange kind of context of the 70ies (what are “moral sociologists”?)).
The important thing is: not to suggest a unity where there is none. If we, along with other authors do not agree that EM is an “alternative” to sociology then this difference/particularity should be expressed in the article. For the short introductory statements, however, we should try to find a real consensus that gives an accurate yet general enough description to those who don’t know anything about EM and come here to find out more. --ozean (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing disputes & quality of this article 

message: Below, you will find a proposition for the opening statement of this article.
:Ethnomethodology is a kind of social research which studies the ways in which people make sense of their world, display this understanding to others, and produce the mutually shared social order in which they live. The term was initially coined by Harold Garfinkel in 1954.Harold Garfinkel (2002). Ethnomethodology's Program. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. . Page 4.
:Ethnomethodological research is descriptive and it does not engage in the explanation or evaluation of the particular social order that is the topic of its study. Ethnomethodology has developed from a radical critique of those methodologies for social research that employ deductive reasoning, that take social categories for granted, or that focus on explaining social order from a position that is posited as being privileged when compared to the position of those who participate in the production of social order.
I am pretty sure that we can improve on the formulation here and there. I think that two aspects should be discussed later in the article because they have been challenged here and would make the introductory statement to long and/or confusing (the name ethnomethodology is long and confusing enough, so it would be a good idea to keep the other stuff as brief and lucid as possible):
* “but the discipline itself has changed from Garfinkel's original programme to the point where it is no longer recognisable”. Although I personally don’t think this is true, we are working in the wikipedia, so if User:Jonathanbishop thinks this is relevant we will have to deal with it, because it has a verifiable source and that is the way the English wikipedia works (this is quite different in the German wikipedia). I would suggest to do this in a separate section called something like "Developments of Ethnomethodology since its inception" or something like that – I would think that in this logic of verifiability the Maynard and Clayman article (being published in the second highest ranked sociological journal), the later chapters in "An invitation to ethnomethodology: language, society and social interaction" by Francis & Hester, and, of course, Garfinkel 2002 should be good sources to use with and against the claims of "J.R. Bergmann (2004). Ethnomethodology. In: U. Flick, E. von Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.) A Companion to Qualitative Research; pp.72-81" to provide for a reliable, verifiable and neutral discussion.
* contemporary studies/applications of EM: since I do not see a reason why “Modern application of these principles can best be seen in the "Proactive in Progress" plan for the St Dyfrig's pedestrian subway.” is an adequate representation of contemporary work in EM I think it is best to, once more, use a separate category called something like "Contemporary studies relying on EM" or something like that. There, we could present the varios topics that are being studied under the label EM and we could probably also discuss, why these are actually worthwhile cases (either because they represent orthodox application or significant variations of the EM-theme). Again, the sources given above offer a starting point.
I also have difficulty with "Pioneering new approaches in this discipline have originated out of the Trefforest School of Thought, with its focus on applications for public betterment in both the physical and virtual world." I have never heard of the Trefforest School of Thought and it is practically non-existant even in a Google search. Since the "can best be seen" and "pioneering new approaches" are not exactly neutral and since I could not find evidence for their significance, I will delete these from the article. I would ask User:Faruk74 to provide reasons why these are relevant before re-entering these statements.
--ozean (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The St. Dyfrig's/Trefforest School of thought stuff is vandalism made by Wiki-stalkers of me, I removed it once before. 'proactive in progress' is based on a quote I gave to the media about a social change project I'm involved with. If it happens again I suggest you immediately remove it and ask the this article be protected and the offending user accounts be suspended. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition for opening statement 

message: Mr. Bishop's contribution to the citations appearing in this article consists of 10 original citations to 9 authors, 8 of which fall within the period 1974-1996: 1970s [3], 1980s [2], 1990s [3]*. Only one, Bergmann, is after 1996, specifically 2004. None of these original citations is to an original policy statement by Garfinkel, although he does piggy back on one of my citations to a text by Garfinkel - he adds a clause to one of my footnoted sentences.
In the factual disputes documented above, Bishop continues to use citations which pit the founder of the discipline - Harold Garfinkel - against a number of authors who are, in 8 of the 9 cases, only commentators on the works of Harold Garfinkel; Lynch as the author of an original study is the only exception here.
As Garfinkel's last programmatic statement, Ethnomethodology's Program [2002], appears after the works of 8 of the 9 authors used by Bishop, and Bergmann has been ruled out as an authority over the works of Garfinkel [see Ozean above / by extension], under what justification do any of these commentators' statements of ethnomethodological policy override those of the founder of the discipline; especially given the fact that 8 of the 9 commentators could not possibly know of Garfinkel's "forthcoming" 2002 statement at the time that they wrote their texts, and the elaboration and/or modification to ethnomethodological policies and practices made available in this statement.
Bishop may go on about the diversity and unrecognizability of the current discipline relative to Garfinkel's definition of ethnomethodology, but the author's he cites are not relevant sources for such a claim. That is, Garfinkel [2002] trumps all of the cited authors which Bishop has introduced into this article when it comes to issues regarding the current state of ethnomethodology's program. This article is, after all, about the definition of ethnomethodology, not the unrecognizability of ethnomethodology relative to Garfinkel's definition of it. If Bishop wants to deal with the current "diversity" of  ethnomethodology, he should do so in a separate section within the article.
* These citations are: [1] Gill [?], [2] Coulon, [3] Attewell, [4] Bergmann, [5] Sharrock, [6] Collins, [7] Lynch, [8] Mehan, [9]Leiter.
Incidently, is Karamjit S. Gill an authority on ethnomethodology? Is this someone who should be cited in the opening sentence of an article on ethnomethodology as a defining figure. The book cited is out-of-print.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For ethnomethodology to be eligible for a page on Wikipedia it needs to be an established discipline. Citing once source as you did (Garfinkel) does not show that it is anymore than one person's concept. Garfinkel may have coined the term 'ethnomethodology', but as I have shown through the citations I have provided it has taken on new meanings and uses beyond what was intended and evolved into a discipline in much the same way psychoanalyis evolved from what was originally put forward by Freud. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Note regarding the [Bishop] citations appearing in this article

message: Here is an interesting statment from Maynard/Kardash at,  sociologyencyclopedia.com, p.1484.
"There is a strong influence of phenomenology on ethnomethodology, but Garfinkel deemphasized perceptual knowledge as a mental process or activity in favor of a concern with embodied activity and the practical production of social facts as that production resides in lived experience..."[blah blah run-on sendence/these guys do like to rattle on].
How ambiguous is that:
[1] "There is a strong influence of phenomenology on ethnomethodology...". This, I believe is undeniable. The problem consists of determining whether this influence is: (a) direct in terms of ethnomethodology being founded as a form of phenomenology itself, a phenomenological sociology a la Schutz; (b) founded on phenomenological insights taken from phenomenology, but not itself a form of phenomenology; or, (c) based on intentionally, "misread(ing)", phenomenological texts as Garfinkel states [2002].
The available literature authored by Garfinkel directly supports (c). There is nowhere in Garfinkel 1967 or 2002 that supports (a). A case can be made for (b) in terms of the "oblique references" approach appearing in the Wiki article, but is condemned to ambiguity as to "what" and "how far" the influence extends, as Garfinkel rarely, if ever, uses citations/pagination when referring to phenomenological texts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.45 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just say: splendid! Cheers, Mike Restivo (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnomethodology and phenomenology

message: First some credentials: I am Howard Schwartz in real life (hi all!), one of Garfinkel's major students in the late 60's and early 70's when I was to my knowledge the only Ethnomethodologist to have taught as a Professor at Harvard. This does not make me at all uniquely qualified, but does suggest I know a bit of what I speak. The conflicts and cantroversies on this page are, alas, typical of Ethnomethodology and Ethnomethodologists for decades. In part, this stemmed from one of Garfinkel's laudable traits: He never produced clones of himself, but identified the strong points of his students and nourished them. This produced many different, but equally self confident social scientists. It was build into the man and `the work' that there would and should never be some agreed upon, well established version of what Ethnomethodology was. It was one of Harold's anguishes that, because of this, what he created might not survive his passing on - at least without equally creative people that he inspired. All that said, I regret the `in-group' narrative style of this article, which I fear will be too dense for ordinary readers to penetrate. I wrote in this way myself for many years, but have come to believe that many of Garfinkel's insights can be effectively communicated, without loss of subtle detail - in an ordinary English narrative style. I would hope the author would identify him/her self (surely not Alfred Schutz risen from the dead!), and be interested in a possible, collaborative rewrite. Perhaps some of us can introduce readers to the many observations Garfinkel made, decades before other disciplines took them up. I doubt any of us will ever agree about what Ethnomethodology was, is, has become, or should be.Howards21 (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just say: splendid! Cheers, Mike Restivo (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief Interlude

message: Let's get analytical: what are the characteristics of "social orders". If I am not mistaken, no mention of this concept is made in Garfinkel 1967. Garfinkel 2002 has only 2 references to this in the Index, although it has multiple references to "phenomenon of order". As EM's "object" of interest, what do social order consist of? ASchutz (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Orders

message: Moved down from the top of page.
In the interests of brevity, I consolidated these two sections.  The surfing example gets lost, but gets replaced with an example from Garfinkel's own research.  We also lose the etiology of the term, but I think this would be better handled on the Wiktionary page anyway.  Pracktiker (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I pray to differ.  The point of the Heritage quote is to suggest to the reader that the field of inquiry is a very broad one.  It is not meant to detract from the seriousness of the enterprise, nor does it have anything to do with "philosophically retreaded ideas" (whatever that might mean).  I might add it comes from a carefully written account of the field by a knowledgeable author and is not a "rhetorically specious programmatic characterization." Pracktiker (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhetorical questions and "what is X" sections are certainly out of style for an encyclopedia - if it were to be reformatted as an "overview" section those are still discouraged by the MOS.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, you are right.  EM starts from certain assumptions, but it is not theory driven.  It does not do hypothesis testing; it operates in a different way.  The issue here is why headline the topic in an article that is meant to positively describe what EM is?  To enter into this discussion, IMHO, gets us off on the wrong foot and is beyond the scope of an elementary introduction.  Pracktiker (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  Again, I am not disagreeing with you.  What you say is true.  This sounds like a great start for a paper ("Felix Kaufmann's Unsung Contributions to the EM Program").  But why do we need to bring it up in the context of an introductory article on EM?  I have the same concern, BTW, about the extensive treatment of phenomenology on this page.  Pracktiker (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: "My phenomenology section"?  And I thought this was a collaborative writing exercise. Pracktiker (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm with you there.  If we carefully rework this page and if a naive reader reads the revised article in FULL and still cannot answer that question, then we will have failed.  Let's start rearranging some deck chairs.  Pracktiker (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: REWRITE OF ORIGINS

message: In the opening section we had a sentence that began, "Ethnomethodology's research domain ..." and another that read, "Ethnomethodology's research focus ...".  That section was redone a while back, but I no longer remember the rationale for having both.  They seem to say pretty much the same thing, so I consolidated them into a single sentence.  Pracktiker (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel there is a serious loss of meaning created by bringing those two sentences together, please offer an alternative.  Pracktiker (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am proposing that we craft a section that provides a descriptive overview of the area (a "What is EM" section, if you will).  But rather than add another section to an already prolix article, I suggest we construct it from pieces salvaged from two of the existing sections.Pracktiker (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Be patient; I ain't done yet.  I did expand the opening statement.  See if it addresses your concerns.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pracktiker (talk • contribs) 22:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Reorganization

message: The introduction and final varieties sections are comprehensible. However, the introduction does not set up the reader for the main body of the article, and the varieties section almost contradicts the key points attempted in the body. The body of the article reads like sections pasted from several different undergraduate essays, with no attempt to link them together. I had hoped that this article (like most wiki articles in sociology) would present a coherent view of ethnomethology, the development of key ideas, controversies, and relevance, but this article does not deliver much more than assorted information under overly broad headings. Compared to other sociology articles in the portal that are formulaic but clear, it's not clear what this article is trying to say, and this article might be too long with respect to trying to cover everything in one go.
So you say. You, of course, are the final arbiter of what is, or is not, "coherent", in the description of ethnomethodology. Your condescending attitude towards the work of others [re: "undergraduates"] is a bit arrogant - if you don't like something, propose an alternative; don't come in denouncing the article as incoherent and the work of intellectual inferiors. The article is the product of a number of people, none of which seeks to control the thoughts of the others - unless these thoughts are in error. Note that there are a number of people who have found this article helpful: see ratings. I also seriously doubt that this article is less coherent than the articles for "most sociology articles in wiki" - take a look at some of the others. ASchutz (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: essay-like

message: Why does this article use at least three different citation styles, two of which are distracting and non-standard for the wiki?
Because different people have contributed to it, and they have not used the same footnoting method. At last count the article has 84 citations - the most for any social science article on Wiki. There are a number of styles of citation. The one that you may not get is the ASA [American Sociological Association] format: [Author:Year/Citation:Page(s)]. If someone wants to standardize all of the styles into one, go for it. Our position: as the article is still evolving - and we do not seek closure - it would be premature to "finalize" the citations.ASchutz (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: citation style

message: The sections: Theory and methods, and Ethnomethodology and traditional sociology, appear to be original research. Bright warning signs include huge swaths of texts without citation, that make claims that begin, for example:
"Such a reading serves to locate ethnomethodology"
"The larger point here"
"it is a hallmark of the Ethnomethodological perspective that it does not make theoretical or methodological appeals"
"Although the language has changed, the message remains the same"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.187.117 (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  synthesis tag 

message: Previous talks (the newest being from 2014) seem to defend this page's writing style but as a layman it just comes across as gatekeeping whatever the details of this subject actually is. It is written like an essay to be marked, rather than a wiki article with a general audience in mind.
I am (obviously) not qualified to fix this article and unfortunately do not know wikipedia well enough to know where to highlight this page for support, but it really seems like an editor(s) skilled in writing pages on sociological concepts need to rework this page. Kaizoku-D (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong, but since all accounts are situated accounts, indexical and reflexive to the time and situation in which they are constituted, I agree that the entire article be deleted. Let's begin again and hope for better results. 67.81.31.102 (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The main body of this article is nearly incomprehensible from a layman's perspective