| | Misreading Schutz: A Response to Dennis on ‘Lynch on Schutz on Science’ |
 | | Far from offering ‘post-analytic ethnomethodology’ as a corrective, I suggest (1993: 152-3) that it may be impossible to proceed with a social science (or something like a social science) that does not rely upon some kind of principled (‘protoethnomethodological’) distinction between ordinary and scientific (or academic) analysis. |
 | | The radical promise of ethnomethodology, at least as I view it, is to undertake research without initially setting up a secure refuge for ‘analysis’ that would be uncontaminated by the commonsense knowledge and everyday methods studied. |
 | | However, as I noted, the professionalized form of ethnomethodology becomes difficult to sustain in the face of the insight that available positions for ‘experts’, ‘analysts’, and ‘methodologists’ are already occupied in and around the communities that produce such methods. |
| theoryandscience.icaap.org /content/vol5.1/lynch.html (4076 words) |