Ethnography, ethnomethodology and the problem of generalisation in design

Abstract

This paper discusses the relationship between sociological theory and method, ethnomethodology and design. It argues that social science theoretical and methodological interests cannot form a basis for interdisciplinarity. Much of the argument about the relevance of ethnography for design, and more specifically about ethnomethodological enquiry, has been cast firstly as problems of method and secondly in terms of the problem of generalisation. We argue that in both instances the problem is miscast. Drawing on the arguments of Wittgenstein and Winch, we suggest that forms of generalisation are to be found in ethnomethodological enquiry and that they may be useful in design-related enquiry. We further suggest, however, that they are not the forms to be found in explanatory social science.

Keywords:

• Ethnomethodology
• design
• organisations
• generality
• ethnography
• sociological analysis

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Wes Sharrock

About the authors

Wes Sharrock is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Manchester where he has been since 1965, first as a graduate student and then, since, 1967, as a member of staff. He has written on a range of topics in sociology, computer-supported co-operative work, and the philosophy of the social sciences, and recently published a book on Thomas Kuhn (with Rupert Read) for Polity Press.

Dave Randall

Dave Randall is a senior lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University. He has a longstanding interest in ethnography and design and has conducted ethnographies in domains as varied as air traffic control, retail financial services, ‘smart’ homes and mobile telephony. He has published extensively in the area of Computer Supported Cooperative Work and is co-author of the forthcoming book, ‘Ethnography in Design’.