Ethnomethodology: Garfinkel's Sociological Framework Explained

Introduction to Ethnomethodology

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.

Garfinkel and the Development of Ethnomethodology

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.