ポスト分析的エスノメソドロジーの展望と展開―科 学実践の理解可能性の探究―
著者 中村 和生
発行年 2015‑01‑23
その他のタイトル Perspective and development of the
post‑analytic ethnomethodology: investigations of the intelligibility of scientific practices
学位授与機関 明治学院大学
学位授与番号 32683乙第8号
URL http://hdl.handle.net/10723/2289
Perspective and development of the post-analytic ethnomethodology:
investigations of the intelligibility of scientific practices
NAKAMURA KAZUO ABSTRACT This doctoral dissertation has two primary goals: the first aims to clarify the contents and significance of post-analytic ethnomethodology and to conduct empirical studies on the basis of its policies, while also locating in the science studies the orientation and exploits of studies of scientific work in post-analytic ethnomethodology. The second aims to introduce a new perspective of ethnomethodology.
Post-analytic ethnomethodology is one of the alternatives into which Michael Lynch—both pupil and colleague of the founder of ethnomethodology Harold Garfinkel—classified
ethnomethodology as proto-ethnomethodology and post-analytic ethnomethodology. Lynch recommends post-analytical ethnomethodology because it is characterized as escaping the proto- ethnomethodological attitude from which “academic ‘analysis’ can somehow be separated from social involvements, local judgments, and embodied actions that ethnomethodologists study”
[Lynch 1993:141=2012:165]. Through this classification, the stance from which to analyze phenomena other than conversation while overcoming past adverse effects—namely, the study policy of post-analytic ethnomethodology—is explicated.
This paper consists of four parts. In the first part, “Transition and development of methods in ethnomethodology,” examination of Garfinkel’s treatment of practical activities in language- based interaction demonstrates that the roads of the transition of Garfinkel’s policies of methods lead to conversation analysis. This “departure from cognitivism” is one of Lynch’s distinguishing criteria between proto-ethnomethodology and post-analytic ethnomethodology. From this follows attempts to explicate the social phenomenon of “telephone-counseling” simultaneously using findings of sequential organization and membership categorization devices.
In the second part, “Ethnomethodology in science studies” takes into consideration the transition of the policies of methods, focusing on science as a field of studies and clarifies the ways ethnomethodology approaches the science. This “breakaway from the old idea of science”
is demonstrated according to another of Lynch’s distinction criteria between the two types of ethnomethodologies.
In the third part, “Praxiological investigation of science in post-analytic ethnomethodology”
studies scientific practices undertaken for the cause of post-analytic ethnomethodology. The seven policies of investigation adopted by Lynch are kept in mind, supporting our approach to three themes: arguments over exclusive privilege of scientific theorization, intelligibility of pictures in social theory, and the relationship between mathematics and physics.
1
In the fourth part, “Location of post-analytic ethnomethodology in science, technology and society (STS)” focuses on genealogical considerations of the sociology of science and the location of (post-analytic) ethnomethodology in today’s studies of science (called STS) that lead to prospective ways for ethnomethodology to contribute to the field.
Finally, our conclusion points out consequences in the dissertation. First, we assert that ethnomethodological studies of scientific work should be treated as an inevitable development of ethnomethodology. Second, there is some sense in which it is because the demarcation between common sense rationality and scientific rationality that Garfinkel and others had taken for granted turned out to be problematic that ethnomethodology, beginning with studies of ordinary action and reasoning, was led to a scientific discipline. Third, extensive use of Lynch’s classification of ethnomethodology introduced a new perspective of ethnomethodology: proto- ethnomethodology/ethnomethodology/analytic ethnomethodology/post-analytic ethnomethodology. Analytic ethnomethodology can be regarded as conversation analysis and , therefore, as one of the ways to transcend proto-ethnomethodology, and post-analytic ethnomethodology can be considered attempts to develop ethnomethodology in areas other than conversational practices while keeping in mind the analytic excellence of conversation analysis.
Fourth, pursuing empirical studies without falling prey to adopting the proto- ethnomethodological attitude means, whether performed in analytic ethnomethodology or post- analytic ethnomethodology, following Garfinkel’s precept of indefinitely enlarging the catalog of practical activities. Studies along these lines could lead to contributions to STS by creating topics of studies practical activities in which “science” and “society” intersect.
