This paper examines ethnomethodology as a sociological perspective developed by Harold Garfinkel in his 1967 work Studies in Ethnomethodology. Beginning with Garfinkel's break from Parsonian functionalism, the paper traces how ethnomethodology respecified sociology's subject matter by focusing on the everyday "artful practices" through which people produce and sustain social order. It then surveys key extensions of the approach, including Conversation Analysis, the study of work program, and technomethodology. Finally, the paper reviews applied studies in anthropological fieldwork, nursing research, computer-supported cooperative work, and business communication, arguing that ethnomethodology offers a flexible and empirically grounded framework for understanding how social life is accomplished in real time.
The paper demonstrates effective synthesis of primary theory and secondary literature. Rather than simply describing Garfinkel's ideas in isolation, the author consistently positions ethnomethodology in relation to competing frameworks (Parsons, Durkheim, symbolic interactionism), showing how the methodology defines itself through contrast. This comparative positioning is a hallmark of strong theoretical review writing at the undergraduate level.
The paper is organized into five sections: an introduction establishing the broader sociological context; a historical section on Garfinkel's intellectual background; a conceptual overview of ethnomethodology's core principles (accountability, reflexivity, practical action); an applications section surveying four distinct fields; and a brief conclusion. This structure moves logically from theory to practice, a common and effective pattern for social science survey papers.
The social science of sociology is continually changing, driven by the ongoing evolution of the society it studies. Although different methodologies — such as functionalism, Marxism, and symbolic interactionism — have significant differences, they all rest on the premise that the social world is essentially orderly, and that patterns of societal behavior and interaction are regular and systematic rather than haphazard and chaotic. A recent sociological perspective called ethnomethodology, theorized by Harold Garfinkel in his 1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology, studies the ways in which people make sense of their potentially chaotic social world.
When Garfinkel first released his new concept, it made a strong and immediate impact on the field of sociology. However, this early interest faded, sometimes replaced by a belief that ethnomethodology had not delivered on all that it promised. Other fashions came along, and ethnomethodology lagged behind other methodologies in its support and utilization among sociologists. This is not to say, however, that it is not a functioning social science with conducted studies. In fact, although ethnomethodology has only been known for a few decades, it now has global interest. In Italy, for example, a growing number of sociologists are now familiar with this approach; it has been included in courses on sociological thought and has inspired contributions to Italian sociological journals (Segre, 2004).
The basics of ethnomethodology established by Garfinkel have since branched off into other variations. These include conversational analysis, originated by Harvey Sacks at the University of California in the 1960s. A more recent development within ethnomethodology is the study of the work program, which seeks to investigate individuals' methods and competencies involved in the production of complex activities.
The modern technological age has also created innovative aspects of ethnomethodology, including technomethodology, which is used to describe the relationship between ethnomethodology and the design of technology. It is increasingly understood that observational methods can be a valuable means of informing design (Button & Dourish, 1996). Despite the numerous changes that parts of ethnomethodology have undergone since its conception by Garfinkel, there are now individuals who see the value in this approach and are clearly making progress with it. The most positive aspect of ethnomethodology is that it helps people make sense of what is happening sociologically in the here and now.
When Parsons published The Structure of Social Action, he clearly explained the works of Durkheim and Weber to the English-speaking world and "established orthodoxies relative to these works that stood for several decades" (Ritzer, 1988, p. 180). He also outlined his own "voluntaristic" theory, which became the foundation for functionalist sociology.
Functionalism affirms the existence of one factual behavioral order caused by another — an order consisting of norms, values, roles, and statuses. Socialization and its internalization by societal members cause the behavioral order that sociologists can observe. The object was to determine what kinds of norms, processes, and other principles are necessary for socialization to produce social order.
Harold Garfinkel, who was Parsons' student at the time, developed a more innovative approach through his extreme commitment to empirical study. Rather than being interested in the kinds of normative networks necessary to sustain family structures, he was concerned with such questions as: "What normative networks are there?" or "Are there any normative networks?" or "How can one see normative networks?" or even "Actually, where is the family structure?" Garfinkel's "look-and-see" attitude toward social phenomena led him to a distinct empirical sociology that was still based on Parsons' theory and themes of social structure, normative prescription, and shared understandings.
These thoughts led Garfinkel to an area of previously unexamined social phenomena that he called "members' methods" or "artful practices" (Garfinkel, 1967), and eventually to the term ethnomethodology to describe these investigations. He published his conclusions in 1967 in Studies in Ethnomethodology. Essentially, these ethnomethodological studies stripped away the functional premises and theoretical orientations so that it was possible to see the "real and actual society" in "the concreteness of things" (Garfinkel, 1988, p. 106).
Garfinkel believed that Parsons felt the "real and actual society" was not to be found in the concreteness of things, but only as the product of formal theory and methodology — or what Garfinkel called "formal, constructive analysis" (p. 106) — which offers concepts and categories predetermined by logical necessity and common-sense reasoning. The conjecture of non-empirical factors could then tell sociologists what must in some way empirically exist. In this way, the theoretically constructed society takes the place of the "concreteness of things" as the "real and actual society" (p. 106). It is this "concreteness of things" that ethnomethodologists began to analyze.
Ethnomethodology was first conceived and developed by Harold Garfinkel in the 1950s, and since then has extended in different directions through the 1960s and early 1970s through the work of Harvey Sacks, the founder of Conversation Analysis (CA). Garfinkel wished to respecify sociology's subject matter and methodology. The prevailing school of sociological thought at this time — especially in America — was structural functionalism, developed primarily through the work of Talcott Parsons and his 1937 The Structure of Social Action. Garfinkel (1991, p. 11) refuted this perspective by stating that "ethnomethodology undertook the task of respecifying the production and accountability of immortal, ordinary society." His goal was thus more than simply arguing against Parsons; he also wanted to use Parsons' views as a means of questioning the very nature of sociology — the questions it addressed and how it answered them.
One way that ethnomethodologists argued against the standard sociological thought of that era was through their rejection of the relationship between practical social action and the sociological "rules" by which stable social order is established and maintained — that is, the "problem of social order." Émile Durkheim, who established the theoretical foundations of sociology, noted: "The objective reality of social facts is sociology's fundamental principle," from which all sociological rationale and practice followed. Because social facts were objectively real, sociology could study these facts and their consequences. Parsons elaborated on this aspect of Durkheim's thought by stating that social order was a matter of concerted action; in performing activities that accord with shared rules and norms, social actors achieve the coordination of their activities.
Garfinkel went even further than refuting Parsons' work. Overall, he did not support the idea that a stable social order naturally and simply precedes social facts. He underscored how social order is made to work through the actions of its members. Social order does not simply exist, and social action is not simply determined from it: social order and social action cannot be approached independently. By studying social facts based on the everyday actions of people, ethnomethodologists examined rational social behavior and how others perceived each other's engagement. The ethnomethodologists argued that "rational social behavior" was noticeable not only to sociology professors who were aware of "the rules," but also to those engaged in daily practical actions. People in general recognize rational social behavior when they see it, even if they are not trained sociologists.
Because they stress that everyday practical action matters, these ethnomethodologists note that the production of social order is not the special activity of certain groups or times; rather, it is integrated into all aspects of society. This leads to two conclusions. First, as people carry out their everyday accounts of social action, they will be involved with activities of broader sociological interest. Second, by emphasizing practical social action, attention is drawn to how practical matters assume a critical role in the knowledge and production of action. Understanding social action was developed to help people get things done.
Ethnomethodologists capture this by saying that human social action is "reflexively accountable" — it shows other people it is accountable through its very production. In other words, an ordinary social fact, such as saying hello to someone, is observable through the use of a recognizable greeting — "hello" — placed in an interactionally organized position within the conversation. The word is a feature of the way it is used, not merely of what the word is. "Hello" can be used to get someone's attention, as an inquiry, as a mark of interest, or as a signal of surprise. The question is the way it is used and how it is heard as being used one way or another. Ethnomethodologists observe that the circumstances in which language performs social action allow others to recognize the nature of that action. Accountability thus became one of the central factors of ethnomethodology.
As with any scientist or social scientist, it is his or her role and responsibility to continually observe life with the ultimate goal of better understanding it, so as to make improvements in human societal evolution. Ethnomethodology argues that there is no genuine choice to be made between viewing social life from within and from without. The sociologist is first and foremost a member of society, and his or her ability to explain social life in any way possible is part of being a member. In making sense of social life as it is observed, the sociologist must employ the same forms of resources as any other member of society.
Ethnomethodologists help better explain a complex society by asking how people make sense of a situation — so they know how to plan their own actions in relation to those of others and reach satisfactory results. The important element is: how does one put knowledge to use in making sense of what is happening in the here and now? "…ethnomethodology provides the most promising prospect to date of adequately answering sociology's foundational questions," note Francis and Hester. This sociological approach will "empower its practitioners to revolutionize the discipline and fully realize its promise" and determine how social life really works.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.