Copy the page URI to the clipboard
Hammersley, Martyn
(2018).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12167
Abstract
A major target of criticism for ethnomethodology has been cognitivism. In its broadest sense this term refers to any account of human behaviour that treats psychological features of agents – including beliefs, attitudes, and interpretations – as factors explaining their behaviour. While much criticism of cognitivism has been directed at neuroscientists and philosophical materialists, the range of targets has been wider than this, even including sociologists such as Herbert Blumer and symbolic interactionists. In this article I outline this criticism of Blumer and assess it. My conclusion is that, despite some misreading, his work does fall into the broad category of cognitivism. However, I question the grounds for the ethnomethodological critique.
Viewing alternatives
Metrics
Public Attention
Altmetrics from AltmetricNumber of Citations
Citations from DimensionsItem Actions
Export
About
- Item ORO ID
- 54143
- Item Type
- Journal Item
- ISSN
- 1468-5914
- Keywords
- cognitivism; ethnomethodology; Herbert Blumer; ordinary language philosophy; psychologism; symbolic interactionism
- Academic Unit or School
-
Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies (WELS) > Education, Childhood, Youth and Sport > Education
Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies (WELS) > Education, Childhood, Youth and Sport
Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies (WELS) - Copyright Holders
- © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
- SWORD Depositor
- Jisc Publications-Router
- Depositing User
- Jisc Publications-Router