Hopefully, by the end of the year or at the latest by Spring 2023 “The Anthem Companion to Harold Garfinkel” co-edited by Philippe Sormani and myself will be published with Anthem Press. It’s currently due to be published in March 2023.
Soeben ist mein Aufsatz/Review Essay zur exzellenten Übersetzung von Harold Garfinkels ‘Studies in Ethnomethodology’ in der Soziologischen Review erschienen.
vom Lehn, D. (2021). Ethnomethodologie: von marginalem Forschungsprogramm zu soziologischem Klassiker. Review Essay zu Harold Garfinkel, ‚Studien zur Ethnomethodologie‘, herausgegeben von Erhard Schüttpelz / Anne Warfield Rawls / Tristan Thielmann, übersetzt von Brigitte Luchesi, Frankfurt/New York: Campus 2020, 386 S., gb., 24,95 € Original: Harold Garfinkel, ‘Studies in Ethnomethodology’, Englewood Cliffs/NJ, Prentice-Hall 1967, 304 S. In Soziologische Revue, vol. 44, no. 4, 2021, pp. 518-531. https://doi.org/10.1515/srsr-2021-0069
Over 20 years ago, in 2000, Franz Breuer, Jo Reichertz and Wolff-Michael Roth started a FQS debate on the “Quality of Qualitative Research.” In past contributions to this debate a wide range of issues has been discussed, such as various qualitative techniques of collecting or analyzing data, or the application of such methods within different disciplinary and institutional contexts. Since its beginning, the call for contributions to this debate has remained unchanged, while academic discussions surrounding this topic have changed substantially. The questions that were raised originally—What is “good” science? What are “good” social sciences? What is “good” qualitative social research? What are the criteria and standards for such evaluations?—are still relevant today and will continue to provide a baseline for future contributions, however, an update of the call for this FQS debate may be in order.
In the past, qualitative researchers have fought hard for acceptance and recognition of their work; this battle has largely been won. Today, in most social science disciplines (perhaps with the exception of psychology), qualitative epistemologies, theories, and methods are used and taught as “mainstream” science alongside their quantitative counterparts. Most university colleagues, students, and administrators have fully accepted their legitimacy and utility. While this is excellent news, it does not mean that debates about the “quality” of qualitative research have been, or should be, abandoned. Today, such debates take place in multiple contexts of discourse in which the “quality” of qualitative research is understood and treated in very different ways.
- The continued globalization and interdisciplinary appeal of qualitative research has accelerated the diversification of existing frameworks, theories, methodologies and methods. We are encountering many innovative developments that originate within the “older” qualitative approaches, such as social constructionism, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, phenomenology, hermeneutics, grounded theory methodology, and discourse analysis. In addition, today, many qualitative researchers transcend traditional boundaries and draw on a much broader theoretical canon when using and developing new qualitative methods, including critical approaches such as feminist, postcolonial and critical race theories, political economy frameworks, as well as postmodernism, poststructuralism and arts-based epistemologies. Moreover, collaboration between qualitative social scientists and scholars from discipline as diverse as the arts, design, computer sciences, medicine, and other health sciences have accelerated the development of “alternative” research methods. These developments lead to many new questions, such as: What does the new theoretical landscape of qualitative epistemologies and methodologies look like? How do various national and cultural contexts shape developments and debates of new qualitative frameworks? Finally, how is the “quality” of new qualitative research practices assessed across different disciplines and epistemological contexts?
- Over the past 20 years, qualitative research has been influenced by tremendous developments and expansions in technology and social media. Researchers increasingly use tools such as video-cameras, smart phones, and the Internet to collect data. A wide array of software packages has both reduced and increased the complexity of data collection and analysis. We must ask new questions, such as: How does the proliferation of new tools and technologies shape the practical and intellectual work of qualitative researchers? Which new social worlds and relationships have emerged, and how should they be examined and theorized qualitatively?
- Funding mechanisms in the (social) sciences have also changed substantially, alongside institutional structures in the university. Today, in addition to public and non-profit funding bodies, researchers must turn to private and commercial institutions to acquire resources, some of which are very open toward qualitative approaches while others question their utility. New questions, such as the following, emerged: How do changes in funding and other institutional structures influence the theory and practice of qualitative research? How do the new funding and institutional landscapes vary by country, by region, and by discipline? What impacts do these changes have on the selection of research topics and on qualitative research ethics and responsibilities?
- Lastly scientific research has increasingly come under pressure from politicians and policy makers, as well as from other influential experts, who have bluntly questioned the scholarly enterprise and confronted all scientific research with hostility and antagonism. This raises questions, such as: How do researchers who use qualitative theories, methodologies and methods respond to fundamental challenges of their (social) scientific expertise? How do they convince public audiences that their work raises and helps solve important questions?
Despite long-standing discussions about the quality of qualitative research, still no agreement has been reached about a catalogue of criteria that would serve to guarantee its value across the myriad contexts in which it is used today, similar to the classical, canonical standards that exist for quantitative scholars. In fact, we must broaden our understandings of what qualitative research is, and how it is practiced, while we continue to ask questions about its “quality.” The many issues and questions raised above may serve to re-invigorate discussions about the “Quality of Qualitative Research” in this FQS Debates, in alignment with current developments and concerns. As internal and external conditions for qualitative research practice have changed, a new engagement with the original issues, we hope, will invite new participants, raise new questions, and will lead to new insights within this worthwhile “Quality” debate. A reconfigured international FQS debate team eagerly awaits your submissions.
This is a Call without a deadline.
For questions, please contact the Section Editors: Franz Breuer, Paul Eisewicht, Margarethe Kusenbach, Jo Reichertz, Dirk vom Lehn, e-mail: email@example.com
In June, I wrote a short piece about the practice of theorising, ethnomethodology, and the pandemic for the Magazine of The Sociological Review. The brief text can be accessed HERE or by clicking the image below.
The changing role of the optometrist in assessing eye-sight and eye health during and after Covid-19
King’s Business School have a 4 year, fully funded PhD studentship (fees and stipend) available to undertake research concerned with communication and interaction in remote optometry consultations. The successful candidate will be expected to undertake qualitative, in-depth, studies of the organisation of eye examinations undertaken via telephone, video-phone, etc. Their research will relate to previous video-based studies of communication and interaction undertaken by the supervisory team.
The successful candidate will be a member of the Work, Interaction & Technology Research Group at King’s Business School. Members of the WIT Group are concerned with social interaction in organisational settings, examining the interplay between social interaction and technology. Candidates will undertake naturalistic studies of communication and interaction in optometry that draw on ethnographic and video-based research methods. They will have a social science background and have received training in qualitative research methods, including ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, ethnography, qualitative interviewing and grounded theory.
The PhD project will be undertaken in collaboration with the College of Optometrists and co-supervised by Professor Dirk vom Lehn (KCL) and Professor Peter Allen (Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge). It, therefore, provides candidates with the opportunity to develop a distinctive approach to their research.
The successful candidate will begin in October 2021.
Early applications are encouraged. Applicants are strongly advised to contact the supervisor Professor Dirk vom Lehn at firstname.lastname@example.org
Please submit the following to email@example.com
- Copy of your CV
- One academic reference letter
- Letter of interest (1-2 page) including how you would be a best fit for the project.
Note – applicants must check that they meet our entry requirements prior to applying
You should hold, or be completing, a Master’s degree with a Merit or higher (or overseas equivalent) and have achieved a 2:1 Bachelor’s degree (or overseas equivalent) in a relevant subject.
English language requirements
If you are a native English speaker or have been awarded a degree within the last five years from one of the countries listed here, you may not be required to take an English language test. English language competency is assessed on a case-by-case basis.
If your first language is not English you must be able to provide recent evidence that your spoken and written command of the English language is adequate for the programmes for which you have applied. Check our English language requirements here (Band B). You can use our pre-sessional English calculator to check if your language scores meet our requirements.
Please note, we cannot review individual eligibility before you apply and are only able to consider complete applications which include all supporting documents.
Shortlisted candidates will be invited to an interview and the successful candidate will be asked to submit their formal application via King’s Apply online system.
Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any queries regarding the application procedure.
Table of Contents
Dirk vom Lehn, Natalia Ruiz-Junco and Will Gibson
Part 2 – Varieties of Interactionism
2.1. Pragmatism and Interactionism – Frithjof Nungesser
2.2. Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism and 21st century sociology – Thomas J. Morrione
2.3. Straussian Negotiated Order Theory c.1960-Present – Adele Clarke
2.4. Recent Developments in the New Iowa School of Symbolic Interactionism – Michael Katovich and Shing-Ling S. Chen
2.5. Dramaturgical Framework and Interactionism – Greg Smith
2.6. Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis: The Other Interactionism – Jason Turowetz and Anne Warfield Rawls
Part 3–Self, Identity, and Emotions
3.1 Click, Validate, and Reply: Three Paradoxes of the Terminal Self – Simon Gottschalk
3.2. Animal Selfhood – Leslie Irvine
3.3. The Self and the Supernatural – Rachael Ironside
3.4. The (Un)Healthy Body and the Self – Lisa Jean Moore and Sumayra Khan
3.5. Identity and Racialisation – Matt Hughey & Michael Rosino
3.6. Symbolic Interaction beyond Binaries – J.E. Sumerau
3.7. Culture and Emotion: Interactionist Perspectives – Doyle McCarthy
Part 4 – Social Organisation
4.1. Organizations and Institutions – Patrick McGinty
4.2. Symbolic Interactionism, Social Structure, and Social Change: Historical Debates and Contemporary Challenges – Stacey Hannem
4.3. Mental Health and Symbolic Interactionism: Untapped Opportunities – Baptiste Brossard
4.4. Handling Video of [Police] Violence: Theoretical versus Practical Analyses
– Patrick Watson & Albert J. Meehan
4.5. Space, Mobility, and Interaction – Robin James Smith
4.6. Nature and the Environment in Interaction – Anthony Puddephatt
4.7. The Social Construction of Time – Michael G. Flaherty
4.8. Collective Memory – Lisa-Jo van den Scott
Part 5 – Interactionism, Media and the Internet
5.1. Media Logic, Fear, and the Construction of Terrorism – David Altheide
5.2. Public Fear and the Media – Joel Best
5.3. Policing and Social Media – Chris Schneider
5.4. Interactionism and online identity: How has interactionism contributed to understandings of online identity? – Hannah Ditchfield
5.5. Physical Co-presence and Distinctive Features of Online Interactions – Xiaoli Tian and Yui Fung Yip
5.6. Happy Birthday Michael Jackson: Dead Celebrity and Online Interaction – Kerry O. Ferris
5.7. Multi-Player Online Gaming – David Kirschner
Part 6 – New Developments in Methods
6.1. Situational Analysis as Critical Pragmatist Interactionism – Carrie Friese, Rachel Washburn & Adele Clarke
6.2. Video in Interactionist Research – René Tuma
6.3. Digital Naturalism: Ethnography in Networked Worlds: Ethnography in Networked Worlds – Michael Dellwing
6.4. Ethics in Symbolic Interactionist Research – Will & Deborah van den Hoonard
Part 7 – Reimagining Interactionism
7.1. Toward an expanded Definition of Interactionism – Linda Liska Belgrave, Kapriskie Seide and Kathy Charmaz
7.2. Some Antinomies of Interactionism – Martyn Hammersley
7.3. Interactionist Research: Extending Methods, Extending Fields – Emilie Morwenna Whitaker & Paul Atkinson
7.4. The New Horizons of Symbolic Interactionism – Kent Sandstrom, Lisa K. van den Scott & Gary Alan Fine
This was fun! Over the past couple years, I worked with Natalia Ruiz-Junco, Will Gibson and over 30 colleagues on the production of the International Routledge Handbook of Interactionism. The book is currently prepared for publication on May 27th. The electronic version of the Handbook which is much more affordable than the printed book, can already be purchased.
Because we had so much fun cooperating on this book, we are planning our next joint project already. We are currently working on an edited book with the working title “People, Technology, and Social Organization: interactionist studies of everyday life”. A Call for Abstracts with a deadline of May 15th can be accessed here.
Dirk vom Lehn, Will Gibson and Natalia Ruiz-Junco are developing a new co-edited book project with the working-title,
“People, Technology, and Social Organization: interactionist studies of everyday life”.
In light of the increasing importance of technology in all parts of our lives the chapters to be included in the co-edited book will reveal how technology is oriented to and embedded within the social organization of action in a wide range of settings and institutions, such as education, markets, arts and culture, health and social care, media, politics, science and others. In their analyses, the contributing authors will adopt interactionist and cognate perspectives to explore how the meanings of technology emerge and are negotiated within and through action and interaction.
The proposed volume will comprise around 10 empirical chapters from interactionist researchers working in fields such as symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, discourse methods, ethnographic enquiry, video-based methods, and others. Submissions may draw on a diversity of research methods and data sources, and should draw from empirical analyses of interaction.
The co-edited book is primarily aimed at researchers in the social sciences and beyond whose work is concerned with the interplay between social interaction, technology, and institutions.
Submissions should comprise a title and an abstract of no more than 250 words. Abstracts should describe the setting and the technology being studied, the conceptual/theoretical framework (where relevant), the data being analysed, and the key findings and claims emerging from the analysis. The submission should include up to five keywords, the author(s)’ name, institutional affiliation, and contact details.
Please send your title and abstract with the Subject line: People, Technology, and Social Organization, to Dirk vom Lehn (email@example.com) by 15 May 2021. We plan to submit the final manuscript to the publisher in the summer of 2022.
Almost exactly 2 years ago Christian Meyer and colleagues organized a conference to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the publication of Harold Garfinkel’s Studies in Ethnomethodology. A link to information about the 2017 conference is HERE.
Human Studies has just been published Special Issue devoted to the Studies anniversary that can be accessed HERE and on the image below.
Information, Interaction and Interpretation in Museums and Galleries
Ph.D Studentship: King’s College London with the Royal Academy, London
King’s Business School, Doctoral Programme, King’s College London
Studentship start date: October 2019
Application Deadline: 22ndFebruary 2019
We seek applications for a studentship to undertake a Ph.D at the King’s Business School, King’s College London, in close collaboration with the Royal Academy of Arts, London. The project will examine how visitors use information provided by museums and galleries, for example through labels, gallery cards and electronic devices, in exploring, discussing and interpreting works of art. It will focus on the interaction of visitors and the ways in which resources provided by museums and galleries inform how people engage works of art and participate within exhibitions. Data for the project will consist of audio-visual recordings of ‘naturally occurring’ conduct and interaction within museums and galleries augmented by field studies, interviews of visitors, curators and designers, and textual analysis. The project will also involve undertaking a series of small-scale, ‘experiments’ in actual exhibitions in which we make systematic changes to the information provided to visitors. The project will contribute to contemporary developments in studies of social interaction and in particular our understanding of how the sense and significance of art arises in and through talk, embodied conduct and the use of material and digital resources. It will also contribute to practice, – how the particular resources provided by museums and galleries bear upon the ways in which people engage art and participate in exhibitions. The successful applicant will be supervised by Professor Christian Heath, Dr Dirk vom Lehn (King’s College London) and Dr Maurice Davies (Head of Collections) Royal Academy, London.
Applicants should have a background in the social sciences and some familiarity with qualitative methods and research. The applicant is expected to have an interest in art and museums and galleries. The studentship may fund a one year MSc, followed by a three year studentship to undertake the Ph.D or if the applicant will have already secured an MSc. Or MA, then fund the undertaking the PhD only. We will only consider applicants that are expected to gain a 1stor at least an upper 2:1 in their final degree.
To be eligible for a full award (stipend and fees), you must be ordinarily resident in the UK, meaning there are no restrictions on how long you can stay, and have been ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK for at least three years prior to the start of the studentship grant.
Further information on the eligibility criteria for full awards can be found on the UKCISA website: www.ukcisa.org.uk/Information–Advice/Fees-and-Money/Government-Student-Support
To find out more about of the studentship and the proposed project please contact either Professor Christian Heath (firstname.lastname@example.org)or Dr Dirk vom Lehn (email@example.com). The final deadline for applications is 22ndof February 2019 but we would very much welcome applications before that date.
LISS DTP (firstname.lastname@example.org) can answer any general questions regarding the application process, core methods training requirements etc.
To be accepted, applications must include:
- a completed ESRC LISS DTP Collaborative (CASE) Application Form
- a copy of your CV
- 2 academic references, or 1 academic and 1 professional reference (these should be sent directly to email@example.com by your referees)
- copies of transcripts for all relevant degrees
These materials should be sent BOTH to firstname.lastname@example.org and the project academic lead by the deadline.