English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

List (Analyse &amp; Kritik 1/80) and Baurmann/Leist/Mans (Analyse &amp; Kritik 1/79) try to characterize ethnomethodology by two groups of statements. One group consists of trivialties, the other one contains only absurdities. This way of getting rid of ethnomethodology is enforced through some unfortunate self-representations of ethnomethodologists and a radical version of labelling theory. This part of ethnomethodology deserves criticism and shall get it in the first part of my paper. But the way of dealing with ethnomethodology by getting rid of absurdities and being bored by trivialities deserves in itself to be criticized. I do this in an indirect way by proposing an alternative way to characterize ethnomethodology. This is a way that seems to me more in accordance with the practical activities of ethnomethodologists. In the last part of my paper I criticize some relativistic and some wrong epistemological convictions of ethnomethodologists, that appear in their practical research.

Ethnomethodologie: Ende der Regeln oder Regeln ohne Ende?