Using Ethnomethodological Concepts

Choose one of the following: 
1. Discuss Garfinkel’s claim in the ‘Agnes’ study that gender status is an achievement. How does this differ from conventional sociological approaches to gender, and what implications does this claim have for our understanding of gender as a social institution?
2. In Telling the Code Wieder gives an account of how the norms of the ‘convict code’ structure social reality inside a “halfway house.” Describe how this structuring is done. How does Wieder’s account differ from more conventional normative explanations of social action? 3. EITHER: In his work on ‘mundane reason’ Pollner suggests that our reasoning practices about everyday reality are patterned in the same was as Azande reasoning about the “poison oracle.” What are the central features of these reasoning practices? Do you think that Pollner is correct? If not, why not? If so, what is the significance of his theory? 4. Sacks describes a moral rhetoric of ordinariness. According to Sacks, how are experiences regulated? And how do members sustain a subscription to “ordinariness” even in the course of describing extraordinary events?  5. Both Heritage and Garfinkel argue that members use the same methods or procedures to produce action as they do to recognize actions (the “symmetry proposal”). How do members use adjacency pairs in this manner? And how does this method or procedure figure in the achievement of intersubjectivity (i.e., shared understanding)? 6. What is meant by the concept “preference” in conversation analysis? How is preference manifested in conversational interaction and what role is played by its features in the organization of social behavior?
Write a short essay (4-6 pages)using correct citation practices and bibliography listings. You should use ethnomethodological concepts in formulating your answer to ONE of the following questions. For example, you might consider whether one or more of the following would be useful: (a) the Documentary Method of Interpretation, (b) Garfinkel’s observations regarding the use of rules to interpret — or make sense of — action, (c) the role of background knowledge, (d) the problem of intersubjectivity, or (e) the “accountability” of action, including how rule/norms are kept in “good repair” through the use of accounts and explanations.