Overview
Sociology 185E
Introduction to Ethnomethodology
FINAL EXAMINATION, Summer 2026
Instructions and guidelines:
Write a short essay (4-5 pages) on one of the following topics; the essay should be typed (using a 12-point font), double-spaced, and with 1" margins. Please be sure to cite lecture and text(s) appropriately. You are REQUIRED to use appropriate citation practices and include a bibliography listing the sources you have cited.
Please indicate the question you are answering on the first page of your essay. It is essential that you answer the question indicated on that page. You should definitely avoid giving your essay an alternative title and writing about that instead.
NOTE: 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.
Essay Topics:
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
OR: To what extent do the biochemists described in Mulkay and Gilbert reason in the same ways about science as the Azande do about the "poison oracle"? What are the consequences of this reasoning for the Azande and for the discipline of biochemistry?
- 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?
- 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)?
- 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?
Note: you may find the data that accompanied the lectures on CA useful to answer one or more of these questions. If you use these data excerpts, cite the relevant example by number and attach this handout with your essay. A copy of the data is posted on UCSB Canvas.
| Final Essay Rubric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
Explanation/Description of Key Concepts view longer description | 12 to >9 pts Excellent Comprehensive and clear explanation covering all key concepts. Demonstrates nuanced understanding and insightful connections, providing well-supported examples from readings or lectures.9 to >6 pts Good Generally clear and mostly complete explanation with key concepts addressed. Shows a good level of understanding, though some points may lack depth or clarity. Supported by examples, though integration may vary.6 to >4 pts Adequate Basic explanation with some key concepts missing or lacking clarity. Shows surface-level understanding with few or overly simple examples.4 to >0 pts Needs Improvement Incomplete or unclear explanation with significant gaps in key concepts. Shows minimal understanding or engagement, with examples that are irrelevant or inaccurate. | / 12 pts |
Application to Theories or Processes view longer description | 12 to >9 pts Excellent Thorough and accurate application of key concepts to related theories, processes, or real-world contexts. Insightful examples from class discussions or readings highlight a deep understanding of the material.9 to >6 pts Good Good application, though some explanations may lack clarity or depth. Shows a reasonable grasp of how key concepts connect to theories or processes, supported by relevant examples.6 to >4 pts Adequate Basic application with limited explanation of connections to theories or processes. Shows a surface-level grasp with minimal or generic examples.4 to >0 pts Needs Improvement Limited or unclear application, with missing examples or failure to address key connections to theories or processes. | / 12 pts |
Critiques or Conclusions view longer description | 12 to >9 pts Excellent Detailed discussion of implications, limitations, or critiques of key concepts. Demonstrates insight into broader sociological significance, with well-supported conclusions based on readings and lectures.9 to >6 pts Good Engages well with critiques or implications but may lack depth in some areas. Shows a reasonable understanding of conclusions, though additional support may be needed.6 to >4 pts Adequate Basic critique or limited engagement with implications. Shows surface-level understanding, with few or simplistic conclusions.4 to >0 pts Needs Improvement Minimal critique or engagement with implications; lacks depth or insight. Conclusions, if present, are unsupported or poorly developed. | / 12 pts |
Critical Engagement and Analysis view longer description | 10 to >7 pts Excellent Demonstrates strong critical thinking with unique perspectives or insights. Engages deeply with critiques or applications, raising thoughtful questions or interpretations. Shows clear, reflective understanding of broader implications.7 to >5 pts Good Good critical engagement, though insights may be standard or less original. Addresses critiques or applications clearly, with some awareness of implications.5 to >3 pts Adequate Basic level of critical thinking with limited original insight. Surface-level engagement with critiques or applications; may restate rather than analyze.3 to >0 pts Needs Improvement Minimal critical engagement; lacks depth or insight. Shows poor understanding of critiques or applications, or fails to address them. | / 10 pts |
Development & Style view longer description | 4 pts Excellent Main points are well-developed with high-quality support, demonstrating strong critical thinking. Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are free of errors, with a polished academic tone and clear organization.3 pts Good Main points are clear with supporting details, though some aspects may lack depth. Few grammar or spelling errors, with an appropriate tone and consistent organization.2 pts Adequate Main points lack detail or critical engagement. Grammar and mechanics are inconsistent, with noticeable errors that may distract from readability.1 pts Needs Improvement Main points are underdeveloped with vague ideas and minimal critical thinking. Frequent grammatical errors disrupt readability, with poor organization.https://gauchocast.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Page... NOTES: Introduction INTERACTION = Primordial site of sociality & TALK = Primary means of action in interaction ( Emanuel A. Schegloff ) ◆ Historically ◆ Developmentally ◆ Socially THE IMPORTANCE OF CONVERSATION . ( TALK - IN - INTERACTION ) . Department of Sociology I. Introduction ◆ Economic… ◆ Political… ◆ Social… Talk-in-interaction provides an infrastructure for institutions, culture, sociality — main site for the production, maintenance of social reality THE IMPORTANCE OF CONVERSATION . ( TALK - IN - INTERACTION ) . The World is PERVASIVELY Conversational Department of Sociology I. Introduction Presupposed in … Foundation for … everything discussed so far! THE IMPORTANCE OF CONVERSATION . ( TALK - IN - INTERACTION ) . Department of Sociology I. Introduction THE IMPORTANCE OF CONVERSATION . ( TALK - IN - INTERACTION ) . THE STUDY OF CONVERSATION As a discipline: Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff & Gail Jefferson CONVERSATION ANALYSIS ( CA ) PRE-FIGURED by Garfinkel (and Goffman) Department of Sociology 2. CA: Basic Assumptions & Methodological Principles . { 1 } NO DETAIL CAN BE IGNORED . ➢ example: LAUGHTER Nothing is random, and all of it is social Department of Sociology 2. CA: Basic Assumptions & Methodological Principles . { 2 } NATURALLY OCCURING DATA . ⦸ INVENTED EXAMPLES ⦸ GLOSSING, IDEALIZING ⦸ NO DIRECT OBSERVATION THE USE OF RECORDED DATA (Video or Audio Recordings) - Examined, and Re-Examined ➢ LIMITED BY WHAT YOU ALREADY BELIEVE Department of Sociology 2. CA: Basic Assumptions & Methodological Principles . { 3 } ORGANIZING UNDERSTANDING . THE SYMMETRY PROPOSAL ( HERITAGE ) METHODS TO BUILD -&- DESIGN ACTION ⬄ ⬄ ⬄ METHODS TO INTERPRET -&- UNDERSTAND ACTION Department of Sociology 2. CA: Basic Assumptions & Methodological Principles { 4 } ANTI-BUCKET THEORY of CONTEXT CONTEXT IS DYNAMICALLY CREATED … move-by-move, action-by-action CONSEQUENCES 1. Utterances = Actions 2. Social Actions are Contextually Oriented (Context shaped, Context renewing) Department of Sociology 2. CA: Basic Assumptions & Methodological Principles . { 5 } SEQUENTIALLY ORGANIZED . STABLE SEQUENTIAL PATTERNS STRUCTURE INTERACTION * WEAK CONSTRAINT - wide variety of responses * STRONG(ER) CONSTRAINT - narrow range of responses ADJACENCY PAIRS Department of Sociology 2. CA: Basic Assumptions & Methodological Principles . { 5 } SEQUENTIALLY ORGANIZED . 1) A: Where's Bill? B: Theres a yellow VW outside Sue's apartment Department of Sociology 3. Adjacency Pairs 1. A Sequence of Two Actions 2. Adjacent to One Another 3. Produced by Different Speakers 4. The Two Actions are Ordered as 1st (FPP) and 2nds (SPP) 5. The Pairs Are Particularized - 1sts will make relevant a range of 2nds * NOT a claim of empirical invariance ** NOT claiming empirical generalization Department of Sociology 4. Normative Framework of APs 1. ADJACENCY PAIRS Provide a TEMPLATE FOR ACTION 2. ADJACENCY PAIRS Serve as a MACHINERY FOR MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING Questioners & Answerers Department of Sociology 4. Normative Framework of APs 2. By repeating - Answer was due; “absent” 3. Question is answered - Normative requirement to respond 1. ADJACENCY PAIRS Provide a TEMPLATE FOR ACTION Questioners & Answerers 1. Repeats question - renews continuing relevance EXAMPLES: 2) A: Is there something wrong (1.0) A: Yes or no (1.5) A: Eh? B: No 3) Ch: Have to cut the:se Mummy. (1.3) Ch: Won't we mummy (1.5) Ch: Won't we M: yes Department of Sociology 4. Normative Framework of APs Independent of other issues (generic) RELEVANCE IS PERVASIVE Precisely because it is a generic resource it can be used to make sense of hierarchy, difference, etc. 1. ADJACENCY PAIRS Provide a TEMPLATE FOR ACTION Department of Sociology 4. Normative Framework of APs 1. ADJACENCY PAIRS Provide a TEMPLATE FOR ACTION Questioners & Answerers EXAMPLES: 4) A: What happened at (.) wo:rk. At Bullocks this evening= B: .hhhh Well I don'kno::w::. 5). A: But the trai:n goes. Does the train go o:n the boa:t? B: .h. h Ooh I've no idea:. She ha:sn't sai:d. 6) A: 'S alri:ght? ((concerning a child’s welfare)) B: Well he hasn't come back yet. 1. (Answer is due next) Proposes speaker is uninformed 2. Recipient is informed * not knowing is basis for not answering Department of Sociology 4. Normative Framework of APs | / 4 pts |