Ethnography, ethnomethodology and the problem of generalisation in design

Authors:
Wes Sharrock;Dave Randall
Affiliations:
Department of Sociology, Manchester University, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K.;Department of Sociology, Manchester Metropolitan University, All Saints, Manchester, U.K.
Venue:
European Journal of Information Systems - Special issue: "Interpretive" approaches to information systems and computing
Year:
2004

Citing 5
Cited 4

Faltering from ethnography to design

CSCW '92 Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work
Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction

Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction
A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems

MIS Quarterly - Special issue on intensive research in information systems
Awareness, Representation and Interpretation

Computer Supported Cooperative Work
Introduction to the Special Issue on Activity Theory and the Practice of Design

Computer Supported Cooperative Work

How Can I Help You? Call Centres, Classification Work and Coordination

Computer Supported Cooperative Work
Variations and Commonalities in Processes of Collaboration: The Need for Multi-Site Workplace Studies

Computer Supported Cooperative Work
Testing the integration of smartphone-enabled ethnography with design

Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference
Constructing CSCW: The First Quarter Century

Computer Supported Cooperative Work

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This paper discusses the relationship between sociological theory and method, ethnomethodology and design. It argues that social science theoretical and methodological interests cannot form a basis for interdisciplinarity. Much of the argument about the relevance of ethnography for design, and more specifically about ethnomethodological enquiry, has been cast firstly as problems of method and secondly in terms of the problem of generalisation. We argue that in both instances the problem is miscast. Drawing on the arguments of Wittgenstein and Winch, we suggest that forms of generalisation are to be found in ethnomethodological enquiry and that they may be useful in design-related enquiry. We further suggest, however, that they are not the forms to be found in explanatory social science.