Ethnomethodology's Unofficial Journal

Abstract

Human Studies is ajournai of philosophy and the social sciences, and it has been adopted as the official journal of the Society for Phenomenology and the Human Sciences (SPHS). It also serves as ethnomethodology's unofficial journal. Ethnomethodology is affiliated with no single professional society or academic journal, but Human Studies has been the most consistent outlet for ethnomethodological articles and special issues. As ethnomethodology's unofficial journal, Human Studies has enabled neo? phytes as well more prominent scholars to have an outlet for ethnometh? odological research, and it has also published several special theme issues on ethnomethodology in general (Coulter, 1980; Psathas, 1995), and specific topics such as interaction and language use (Button et al., 1986), representa? tion in scientific practice (Lynch and Woolgar, 1988), and ethnomethodology and conversation analysis in Japan (Psathas and Nasu, 1999). Because of its explicit attention to the philosophy of social science, Human Studies has given visibility to a style of ethnomethodological research characterized by a radi? cal treatment of foundational "philosophical" issues and debates. Consistent with the stated aims of Human Studies, ethnomethodology advances "the dia? logue between philosophy and the human sciences." Ethnomethodology is not a philosophy of social science, but is, rather, an empirical research program that investigates recurrent topics that have had long-standing interest in philosophy and social theory. These topics include action, argument, meaning, knowledge, perception, description, objectivity, and rationality, among many others. This empirical research program takes lessons from critiques by Peter Winch and other philosophers who criticize empiricist social science programs that turn ordinary linguistic concepts into "variables" and "factors" (Winch, 1958). In this brief essay, I hope to clarify what is distinctive about a "philosophical" style of ethnomethodology that owes a great deal to Human Studies, and specifically to founding editor George Psathas, whose combined interests in phenomenological sociology and ethno? methodology have left an indelible mark on the journal's quarter-century. I shall start with the familiar question: What is ethnomethodology? All too frequently, those of us who speak of (and for) ethnomethodology are asked to define the word, and it is tempting to challenge the recurrent call for d?fini