Advertisement

Human Studies

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 193–208 | Cite as

Some Notes on the Play of Basketball in its Circumstantial Detail, and an Introduction to Their Occasion

  • Douglas Macbeth
Memorial

Abstract

In the late 1980s, I wrote up some notes on the play of pick-up basketball and sent them to Harold Garfinkel, who incorporated them into an un-published monograph in 1988. They were motivated by an interest in exhibiting the sense of “detail” for ethnomethodological studies. An edited version is presented below. They follow a front piece of recollection and discussion about Garfinkel’s distinctive interests in matters of “detail,” their tie to structure and structure’s circumstantiality, and their place in EM studies.

Keywords

Ethnomethodology Structure 

References

  1. Baccus, M. (1986). Multipiece truck wheel accidents and their regulations. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Ethnomethodological studies of work (pp. 20–59). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  2. Bjelic, D. (2003). Galileo’s pendulum: Science, sexuality and the body-instrument link. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  3. Burns, S. (2000). Making settlement work. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. Garfinkel, H. (1952). The perception of the other: A study in social order. Dissertation thesis, Department of Sociology, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  5. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Garfinkel, H. (1993). A catalog of investigations with which to respecify topics of logic, order, meaning, method, reason, structure, science, and the rest, in, about, and as the working of immortal, ordinary society just in any actual case. What did we do? What did we learn? Unpublished manuscript, October 17, 1993, Department of Sociology, UCLA.Google Scholar
  7. Garfinkel, H. (1996). Ethnomethodology’s program. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  9. Garfinkel, H., Livingston, E., Lynch, M., Macbeth, D., & Robillard, A. (1988). Respecifying the natural sciences as discovering sciences of practical action, I & II: Doing so ethnographically by administering a schedule of contingencies in discussions with laboratory scientists and by hanging around their laboratories. Unpublished manuscript. December, 7, 1988, Department of Sociology, UCLA.Google Scholar
  10. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (pp. 337–365). New York: Appleton-Crofts.Google Scholar
  11. Garfinkel, H., & Wieder, D. L. (1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social action. In G. Watson & R. M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 175–217). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Liberman, K. (in press). More studies in ethnomethodology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  14. Livingston, E. (2008). Ethnographies of reason. Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  15. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Moerman, M., & Sacks, H. (1971/1988). On ‘understanding’ in the analysis of natural conversation. In Moerman, M. (Ed.), Talking culture (pp. 180–186). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  17. Sacks, H. (1984a). Notes on methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 21–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Sacks, H. (1984b). Doing being ordinary. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 413–429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Sacks, H. (1988). On members’ measurement systems. Research on language and social interaction, 22, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schegloff, E., Sacks, H., & Jefferson, G. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.Google Scholar
  21. Schutz, Alfred. (1962). Collected papers (Vol. 1). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  22. Siegfried, T. (2010). Odds are, it’s wrong. Science news. pp. 26–29 (March 27).Google Scholar
  23. Sudnow, D. (1978). Ways of the hand. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wittgenstein, L. (1981). In Anscombe, G. E. M., & Wright, G. H. V. (Eds.). Zettel. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations