Ethnomethodological Indifference: Just a Passing Phase?
Ethnomethodological Indifference: Just a Passing Phase?
复制标题
民族方法论的冷漠：只是一个过渡阶段？
作者：
G. D. de Montigny
本文探讨社会工作者和其他直接服务的从业人员是否可以找到实用的民族方法论，尽管或甚至因为“冷漠”的政策。民族方法论之父加芬克尔（Garfinkel）提出了“民族方法论的冷漠”（EM-I），坚持认为民族方法论研究并不补充，制定补救措施，发展人文论点，或鼓励理论讨论。虽然乍一看，对新兴市场的这种限制似乎是大多数社会工作者的障碍，但本文反对第一印象。EM为社会工作实践和研究提供了一个重要的方向。此外，有人提出，通过接近EM通过多萝西史密斯的制度人种学社会工作者可以桥接加芬克尔的追求haeccities（“只是这一点;只是在这里，只是现在”）与扩展的社会关系和实际的行动课程，以找到EM和完成专业实践之间的一致性。
This paper examines whether social workers and other direct service practitioners can find utility in ethnomethodology despite or even because of the policy of “indifference”. Garfinkel, the father of ethnomethodology (EM), sets out “ethnomethodological indifference” (EM-I) to insist that EM studies do not supplement, formulate remedies, develop humanistic arguments, or encourage discussions of theory. While at first blush such limits on EM might appear to be a barrier for most social workers this paper argues against first impressions. It is argued that EM provides an important redirection for social work practice and research. Additionally, it is proposed that by approaching EM through Dorothy Smith’s Institutional Ethnography social workers can bridge Garfinkel’s quest for haeccities (“just thisness; just here, just now”) with extended social relations and actual courses of actions to find congruence between EM and accomplished professional practice.