Toward a sociology of social scientific knowledge: Survey research and ethnomethodology's asymmetric alternates

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 323-370

  Maynard, Douglas W ^a   Schaeffer, Nora Cate ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Conversation analysis; Qualitative research; Survey refusals

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034343839     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/030631200030003001     Document Type: Article

References (230)

1. Stanley Lieberson, 'Einstein, Renoir, and Greeley: Some Thoughts about Evidence in Sociology', American Sociological Review, Vol. 57, No. 1 (February 1992), 1-15.
2. Margo J. Anderson, The American Census: A Social History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988).
3. As Karin Knorr Cetina does, we regard 'laboratory' as a theoretical notion referring not just to sites of experimentation but rather to 'productive locales' for doing science: see K. Knorr Cetina, 'Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science', in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA & London: Sage/4S, 1995), 140-66, at 142.
4. Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), esp. Chapter 6.
5. Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia (NewYork: Harvest Books, 1936).
6. In Harold Garfinkel, Studies in Ethnomethodology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967), 18-24, see the discussion of how coding the content of folders in an outpatient clinic to provide a 'disinterested' description of the clinic's operations depends upon a variety of embedded and tacit 'ad hoc considerations'.
7. Harold Garfinkel, Michael Lynch and Eric Livingston, 'The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar', Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 11 (1981), 131-58.
8. See David Bloor, 'Wittgenstein and Mannheim on the Sociology of Mathematics', Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, No. 2 (June 1973), 173-91.
9. For this point, but not in these words, we are indebted to Mike Lynch. For a broader and published discussion of the issues, see Michael Lynch, Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), esp. 39-54 and Chapter 7.
10. Dick Pels, 'The Politics of Symmetry', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 26, No. 2 (May 1996), 277-304,at 281.
11. David Bloor, Knowledge and Social Imagery (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 1976), 7.
12. Trevor J. Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker, 'The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 14, No. 3 (August 1984), 399-441.
13. Steve Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (London: Ellis Horwood & Tavistock Publications, 1988); Malcolm Ashmore, The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1989).
14. Steve Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (London: Ellis Horwood & Tavistock Publications, 1988); Malcolm Ashmore, The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1989).
15. Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, 'Don't Throw the Baby Out With the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearley', in Andrew Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1992), 343-68.
16. Callon & Latour, ibid.; see also Latour, Science in Action, op. cit. note 4.
17. Callon & Latour, ibid.; see also Latour, Science in Action, op. cit. note 4.
18. Harold Garfinkel and D. Lawrence Wieder, 'Two Incommensurable, Asymmetrically Alternate Technologies of Social Analysis', in Graham Watson and Robert M. Seiler (eds), Text in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992), 175-206.
19. Jay A. Labinger, 'Science as Culture: A View from the Petri Dish', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 25, No. 2 (May 1995), 285-306, at 287, and the series of Responses in the same issue. Labinger refers to Social and Cultural Studies of Science (SCS) rather than Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), which is the acronym we are using.
20. Latour, op. cit. note 4, 235.
21. Bruno Latour, 'Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World', in Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (London: Sage, 1983), 141-70.
22. For the phrase, see Woolgar, op. cit. note 13, 90. For a review (1983) of early laboratory research in SSK, see Karin D. Knorr-Cetina, 'The Ethnographic Study of Scientific Work: Towards a Constructivist Interpretation of Science', in Knorr-Cetina & Mulkay (eds), op. cit. note 19, 115-40; for a later review (1995), see Knorr Cetina, op. cit. note 3. See also Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura, 'What Tools? Which Jobs? Why Right?', in Clarke and Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 3-44.
23. For the phrase, see Woolgar, op. cit. note 13, 90. For a review (1983) of early laboratory research in SSK, see Karin D. Knorr-Cetina, 'The Ethnographic Study of Scientific Work: Towards a Constructivist Interpretation of Science', in Knorr-Cetina & Mulkay (eds), op. cit. note 19, 115-40; for a later review (1995), see Knorr Cetina, op. cit. note 3. See also Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura, 'What Tools? Which Jobs? Why Right?', in Clarke and Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 3-44.
24. For the phrase, see Woolgar, op. cit. note 13, 90. For a review (1983) of early laboratory research in SSK, see Karin D. Knorr-Cetina, 'The Ethnographic Study of Scientific Work: Towards a Constructivist Interpretation of Science', in Knorr-Cetina & Mulkay (eds), op. cit. note 19, 115-40; for a later review (1995), see Knorr Cetina, op. cit. note 3. See also Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura, 'What Tools? Which Jobs? Why Right?', in Clarke and Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 3-44.
25. For the phrase, see Woolgar, op. cit. note 13, 90. For a review (1983) of early laboratory research in SSK, see Karin D. Knorr-Cetina, 'The Ethnographic Study of Scientific Work: Towards a Constructivist Interpretation of Science', in Knorr-Cetina & Mulkay (eds), op. cit. note 19, 115-40; for a later review (1995), see Knorr Cetina, op. cit. note 3. See also Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura, 'What Tools? Which Jobs? Why Right?', in Clarke and Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 3-44.
26. Steven Shapin, 'Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 14, No. 4 (November 1984), 481-520.
27. Woolgar, op. cit. note 13, 26.
28. Alfred Schutz, Collected Papers I: The Problem of Social Reality (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973), 59-60.
29. Paul Rabinow and William M. Sullivan, 'The Interpretive Turn: A Second Look', in Rabinow and Sullivan (eds), Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 1-30, at 2.
30. Schutz, op. cit. note 23, 59.
31. Rabinow & Sullivan, op. cit. note 24, 4-5.
32. Michael Lynch and David Bogen, 'Sociology's Asociological "Core": An Examination of Textbook Sociology in Light of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge', American Sociological Review, Vol. 62, No. 3 (June 1997), 481-93, at 490. Within SSK, boundaries between natural and social science have been maintained, which means that they can be of profound analytic interest. As Thomas Gieryn has defined it, boundary-work refers to rhetorical styles whereby actors in some scientific domain demarcate science from non-science for purposes of expanding their authority, monopolizing resources, and/or protecting their freedom and autonomy: T.F. Gieryn, 'Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists', American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 6 (December 1983), 781-95, at note 18, 791-92. However, boundary work is more general than demarcating science from non-science; it occurs in other occupations and professions and, importantly for our purposes, within science, in its subspecialties. For a discussion of how actors construct the boundaries between natural and social science in contingent, variable, and pragmatic ways, see T.F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), Chapter 2. At times, investigators in SSK have explicitly demarcated their concerns with 'life', 'natural' or 'technological' scientists, and left social science out of the picture: Clarke & Fujimura, op. cit. note 20, 6; Knorr-Cetina (1983), op. cit. note 20, 115-17. Garfinkel and his colleagues observe that social sciences are 'talking' rather than 'discovering' sciences, and that social sciences 'achieve in texts, not elsewhere, the observability and practical objectivity of their phenomena', so that 'unlike "hard sciences" they cannot "lose" their phenomena': Garfinkel, Lynch & Livingston, op. cit. note 7, 133. At other times, boundary work is more implicit, as in prominent SSK journals and edited collections whose articles and chapters overwhelmingly concentrate on the natural sciences. Consequently, what we are referring to as boundary-work within SSK may be a matter of emphasis, and we are arguing that that emphasis should be redirected.
33. Michael Lynch and David Bogen, 'Sociology's Asociological "Core": An Examination of Textbook Sociology in Light of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge', American Sociological Review, Vol. 62, No. 3 (June 1997), 481-93, at 490. Within SSK, boundaries between natural and social science have been maintained, which means that they can be of profound analytic interest. As Thomas Gieryn has defined it, boundary-work refers to rhetorical styles whereby actors in some scientific domain demarcate science from non-science for purposes of expanding their authority, monopolizing resources, and/or protecting their freedom and autonomy: T.F. Gieryn, 'Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists', American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 6 (December 1983), 781-95, at note 18, 791-92. However, boundary work is more general than demarcating science from non-science; it occurs in other occupations and professions and, importantly for our purposes, within science, in its subspecialties. For a discussion of how actors construct the boundaries between natural and social science in contingent, variable, and pragmatic ways, see T.F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), Chapter 2. At times, investigators in SSK have explicitly demarcated their concerns with 'life', 'natural' or 'technological' scientists, and left social science out of the picture: Clarke & Fujimura, op. cit. note 20, 6; Knorr-Cetina (1983), op. cit. note 20, 115-17. Garfinkel and his colleagues observe that social sciences are 'talking' rather than 'discovering' sciences, and that social sciences 'achieve in texts, not elsewhere, the observability and practical objectivity of their phenomena', so that 'unlike "hard sciences" they cannot "lose" their phenomena': Garfinkel, Lynch & Livingston, op. cit. note 7, 133. At other times, boundary work is more implicit, as in prominent SSK journals and edited collections whose articles and chapters overwhelmingly concentrate on the natural sciences. Consequently, what we are referring to as boundary-work within SSK may be a matter of emphasis, and we are arguing that that emphasis should be redirected.
34. Michael Lynch and David Bogen, 'Sociology's Asociological "Core": An Examination of Textbook Sociology in Light of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge', American Sociological Review, Vol. 62, No. 3 (June 1997), 481-93, at 490. Within SSK, boundaries between natural and social science have been maintained, which means that they can be of profound analytic interest. As Thomas Gieryn has defined it, boundary-work refers to rhetorical styles whereby actors in some scientific domain demarcate science from non-science for purposes of expanding their authority, monopolizing resources, and/or protecting their freedom and autonomy: T.F. Gieryn, 'Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists', American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 6 (December 1983), 781-95, at note 18, 791-92. However, boundary work is more general than demarcating science from non-science; it occurs in other occupations and professions and, importantly for our purposes, within science, in its subspecialties. For a discussion of how actors construct the boundaries between natural and social science in contingent, variable, and pragmatic ways, see T.F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), Chapter 2. At times, investigators in SSK have explicitly demarcated their concerns with 'life', 'natural' or 'technological' scientists, and left social science out of the picture: Clarke & Fujimura, op. cit. note 20, 6; Knorr-Cetina (1983), op. cit. note 20, 115-17. Garfinkel and his colleagues observe that social sciences are 'talking' rather than 'discovering' sciences, and that social sciences 'achieve in texts, not elsewhere, the observability and practical objectivity of their phenomena', so that 'unlike "hard sciences" they cannot "lose" their phenomena': Garfinkel, Lynch & Livingston, op. cit. note 7, 133. At other times, boundary work is more implicit, as in prominent SSK journals and edited collections whose articles and chapters overwhelmingly concentrate on the natural sciences. Consequently, what we are referring to as boundary-work within SSK may be a matter of emphasis, and we are arguing that that emphasis should be redirected.
35. Michael Lynch and David Bogen, 'Sociology's Asociological "Core": An Examination of Textbook Sociology in Light of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge', American Sociological Review, Vol. 62, No. 3 (June 1997), 481-93, at 490. Within SSK, boundaries between natural and social science have been maintained, which means that they can be of profound analytic interest. As Thomas Gieryn has defined it, boundary-work refers to rhetorical styles whereby actors in some scientific domain demarcate science from non-science for purposes of expanding their authority, monopolizing resources, and/or protecting their freedom and autonomy: T.F. Gieryn, 'Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists', American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 6 (December 1983), 781-95, at note 18, 791-92. However, boundary work is more general than demarcating science from non-science; it occurs in other occupations and professions and, importantly for our purposes, within science, in its subspecialties. For a discussion of how actors construct the boundaries between natural and social science in contingent, variable, and pragmatic ways, see T.F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), Chapter 2. At times, investigators in SSK have explicitly demarcated their concerns with 'life', 'natural' or 'technological' scientists, and left social science out of the picture: Clarke & Fujimura, op. cit. note 20, 6; Knorr-Cetina (1983), op. cit. note 20, 115-17. Garfinkel and his colleagues observe that social sciences are 'talking' rather than 'discovering' sciences, and that social sciences 'achieve in texts, not elsewhere, the observability and practical objectivity of their phenomena', so that 'unlike "hard sciences" they cannot "lose" their phenomena': Garfinkel, Lynch & Livingston, op. cit. note 7, 133. At other times, boundary work is more implicit, as in prominent SSK journals and edited collections whose articles and chapters overwhelmingly concentrate on the natural sciences. Consequently, what we are referring to as boundary-work within SSK may be a matter of emphasis, and we are arguing that that emphasis should be redirected.
36. Michael Lynch and David Bogen, 'Sociology's Asociological "Core": An Examination of Textbook Sociology in Light of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge', American Sociological Review, Vol. 62, No. 3 (June 1997), 481-93, at 490. Within SSK, boundaries between natural and social science have been maintained, which means that they can be of profound analytic interest. As Thomas Gieryn has defined it, boundary-work refers to rhetorical styles whereby actors in some scientific domain demarcate science from non-science for purposes of expanding their authority, monopolizing resources, and/or protecting their freedom and autonomy: T.F. Gieryn, 'Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists', American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 6 (December 1983), 781-95, at note 18, 791-92. However, boundary work is more general than demarcating science from non-science; it occurs in other occupations and professions and, importantly for our purposes, within science, in its subspecialties. For a discussion of how actors construct the boundaries between natural and social science in contingent, variable, and pragmatic ways, see T.F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), Chapter 2. At times, investigators in SSK have explicitly demarcated their concerns with 'life', 'natural' or 'technological' scientists, and left social science out of the picture: Clarke & Fujimura, op. cit. note 20, 6; Knorr-Cetina (1983), op. cit. note 20, 115-17. Garfinkel and his colleagues observe that social sciences are 'talking' rather than 'discovering' sciences, and that social sciences 'achieve in texts, not elsewhere, the observability and practical objectivity of their phenomena', so that 'unlike "hard sciences" they cannot "lose" their phenomena': Garfinkel, Lynch & Livingston, op. cit. note 7, 133. At other times, boundary work is more implicit, as in prominent SSK journals and edited collections whose articles and chapters overwhelmingly concentrate on the natural sciences. Consequently, what we are referring to as boundary-work within SSK may be a matter of emphasis, and we are arguing that that emphasis should be redirected.
37. Michael Lynch and David Bogen, 'Sociology's Asociological "Core": An Examination of Textbook Sociology in Light of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge', American Sociological Review, Vol. 62, No. 3 (June 1997), 481-93, at 490. Within SSK, boundaries between natural and social science have been maintained, which means that they can be of profound analytic interest. As Thomas Gieryn has defined it, boundary-work refers to rhetorical styles whereby actors in some scientific domain demarcate science from non-science for purposes of expanding their authority, monopolizing resources, and/or protecting their freedom and autonomy: T.F. Gieryn, 'Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists', American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 6 (December 1983), 781-95, at note 18, 791-92. However, boundary work is more general than demarcating science from non-science; it occurs in other occupations and professions and, importantly for our purposes, within science, in its subspecialties. For a discussion of how actors construct the boundaries between natural and social science in contingent, variable, and pragmatic ways, see T.F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), Chapter 2. At times, investigators in SSK have explicitly demarcated their concerns with 'life', 'natural' or 'technological' scientists, and left social science out of the picture: Clarke & Fujimura, op. cit. note 20, 6; Knorr-Cetina (1983), op. cit. note 20, 115-17. Garfinkel and his colleagues observe that social sciences are 'talking' rather than 'discovering' sciences, and that social sciences 'achieve in texts, not elsewhere, the observability and practical objectivity of their phenomena', so that 'unlike "hard sciences" they cannot "lose" their phenomena': Garfinkel, Lynch & Livingston, op. cit. note 7, 133. At other times, boundary work is more implicit, as in prominent SSK journals and edited collections whose articles and chapters overwhelmingly concentrate on the natural sciences. Consequently, what we are referring to as boundary-work within SSK may be a matter of emphasis, and we are arguing that that emphasis should be redirected.
38. Otis Dudley Duncan, Notes on Social Measurement: Historical and Critical (New York: Russell Sage, 1984). Bruno Latour portrays metrology as 'the official and primary component of an ever increasing number of measuring activities we all have to take in everyday life': B. Latour, 'Visualization and Cognition', Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, Volume 6 (1986), 1-40, at 30.
39. Otis Dudley Duncan, Notes on Social Measurement: Historical and Critical (New York: Russell Sage, 1984). Bruno Latour portrays metrology as 'the official and primary component of an ever increasing number of measuring activities we all have to take in everyday life': B. Latour, 'Visualization and Cognition', Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, Volume 6 (1986), 1-40, at 30.
40. See Michael Lynch, 'Method: Measurement - Ordinary and Scientific Measurement as Ethnomethodological Phenomena', in Graham Button (ed.), Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 77-108 at 79: 'Ethnomethodology treats measurement as a phenomenon to be investigated in an endless variety of ordinary and professional settings' (emphasis in original).
41. Nora Cate Schaeffer, 'Conversation With a Purpose - Or Conversation? Interaction in the Standardized Survey', in Paul P. Biemer, Robert M. Groves, Lars E. Lyberg, Nancy A. Mathiowetz and Seymour Sudman (eds), Measurement Errors in Surveys (New York: Wiley, 1991), 367-91, at 368.
42. Howard Schuman and Graham Kalton, 'Survey Methods', in Gardner Lindzey and Eliot Aronson (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology (New York: Random House, 1985), 635-97, at 643-52.
43. Floyd J. Fowler, Jr and Thomas W. Mangione, Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer-Related Error (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990), 14.
44. Duncan, op. cit. note 28, 84.
45. H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1985), 79-106.
46. Ibid., 88-89; see also Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), esp. 13-15.
47. Ibid., 88-89; see also Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), esp. 13-15.
48. Warren S. Torgerson, Theory and Methods of Scaling (New York: Wiley, 1958); Hubert M. Blalock, Conceptualization and Measurement in the Social Sciences (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982).
49. Warren S. Torgerson, Theory and Methods of Scaling (New York: Wiley, 1958); Hubert M. Blalock, Conceptualization and Measurement in the Social Sciences (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982).
50. Collins, op. cit. note 34, 100-01.
51. Charles Goodwin discusses how scientists and sailors, investigating the conjuncture of river and ocean, measure ocean depth, not as some abstract, context-free entity, but as related to the activities in which they are embedded and the language games those activities comprise: C. Goodwin, 'Seeing in Depth', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 25, No. 2 (May 1995), 237-74, at 253, 261. For an extended discussion of related issues, see Barry Barnes, David Bloor and John Henry, Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis (London: Athlone Press; Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. Chapters 3, 5 & 7.
52. Charles Goodwin discusses how scientists and sailors, investigating the conjuncture of river and ocean, measure ocean depth, not as some abstract, context-free entity, but as related to the activities in which they are embedded and the language games those activities comprise: C. Goodwin, 'Seeing in Depth', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 25, No. 2 (May 1995), 237-74, at 253, 261. For an extended discussion of related issues, see Barry Barnes, David Bloor and John Henry, Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis (London: Athlone Press; Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), esp. Chapters 3, 5 & 7.
53. Karin Knorr Cetina, 'The Couch, the Cathedral, and the Laboratory: On the Relationship between Experiment and Laboratory in Science', in Pickering (ed.), op. cit. note 14, 113-38, at 116.
54. Latour, op. cit. note 4, 68-69.
55. Collins, op. cit. note 34, 100. We also draw upon Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 35, Chapter 6. On 'recalcitrance', see Clarke & Fujimura, op. cit. note 20, 14.
56. Collins, op. cit. note 34, 100. We also draw upon Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 35, Chapter 6. On 'recalcitrance', see Clarke & Fujimura, op. cit. note 20, 14.
57. Collins, op. cit. note 34, 100. We also draw upon Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 35, Chapter 6. On 'recalcitrance', see Clarke & Fujimura, op. cit. note 20, 14.
58. Jim Nunnally, Psychometric Theory (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1978), esp. 103-05.
59. Elliot G. Mishler, 'Validation in Inquiry-Guided Research: The Role of Exemplars in Narrative Studies', Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 60, No. 4 (November 1990), 415-42. Compare this problem to the international standardization of electrical units. According to Joseph O'Connell: ... metrologists recognize that it is more important to have different representations of the volt and ohm agree with each other than to have them agree with Nature. In fact, agreement with Nature does not seem as important as interlaboratory agreement. J. O'Connell, 'Metrology: The Creation of Universality by the Circulation of Particulars', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 1 (February 1993), 129-73, at 158.
60. Elliot G. Mishler, 'Validation in Inquiry-Guided Research: The Role of Exemplars in Narrative Studies', Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 60, No. 4 (November 1990), 415-42. Compare this problem to the international standardization of electrical units. According to Joseph O'Connell: ... metrologists recognize that it is more important to have different representations of the volt and ohm agree with each other than to have them agree with Nature. In fact, agreement with Nature does not seem as important as interlaboratory agreement. J. O'Connell, 'Metrology: The Creation of Universality by the Circulation of Particulars', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 1 (February 1993), 129-73, at 158.
61. Schuman & Kalton, op. cit. note 31, 643-52; Schaeffer, op. cit. note 30.
62. Schuman & Kalton, op. cit. note 31, 643-52; Schaeffer, op. cit. note 30.
63. Fowler & Mangione, op. cit. note 32, 101.
64. As Howard Schuman puts it, '... we are always dealing with data about social reality, not with social reality itself': H. Schuman, 'Artifacts Are in the Mind of the Beholder', The American Sociologist, Vol. 17 (February 1982), 21-28, at 27 (original emphasis).
65. John R. Zaller also discusses how polling agencies do not find the public's 'true attitude' on issues but many different attitudes as these are constructed from that information which respondents have received, accepted and sampled at the time of responding to survey questions: J.R. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 51, 93.
66. Kenneth Bollen and Richard Lennox, 'Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 110, No. 2 (September 1991), 305-14.
67. Howard Schuman and Jean M. Converse, 'The Effects of Black and White Interviewers on Black Responses in 1968', Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Spring 1971), 44-68.
68. Jean M. Converse, Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890-1960 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 408-10. On the history of the survey interview, also see Martin Bulmer, Kevin Bales and Kathryn Kish Sklar (eds), The Social Survey in Historical Perspective: 1880-1940 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), and Jennifer Platt, A History of Sociological Research Methods in America 1920-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Viewed over the century, the increased presence of the survey in government and the academy that these works document does seem to indicate an 'historical ascendance of the subjective realm', but for a harsher view, see Pierre Bourdieu, 'Epilogue: On the Possibility of a Field of World Sociology', in Bourdieu and James S. Coleman (eds), Social Theory for a Changing Society (New York: Russell Sage, 1991), 373-87, at 381: 'Never have the means of scientific production (and of the legitimate means of scholarly publication) been more concentrated in the hands of the positivist quantitativists'.
69. Jean M. Converse, Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890-1960 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 408-10. On the history of the survey interview, also see Martin Bulmer, Kevin Bales and Kathryn Kish Sklar (eds), The Social Survey in Historical Perspective: 1880-1940 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), and Jennifer Platt, A History of Sociological Research Methods in America 1920-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Viewed over the century, the increased presence of the survey in government and the academy that these works document does seem to indicate an 'historical ascendance of the subjective realm', but for a harsher view, see Pierre Bourdieu, 'Epilogue: On the Possibility of a Field of World Sociology', in Bourdieu and James S. Coleman (eds), Social Theory for a Changing Society (New York: Russell Sage, 1991), 373-87, at 381: 'Never have the means of scientific production (and of the legitimate means of scholarly publication) been more concentrated in the hands of the positivist quantitativists'.
70. Jean M. Converse, Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890-1960 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 408-10. On the history of the survey interview, also see Martin Bulmer, Kevin Bales and Kathryn Kish Sklar (eds), The Social Survey in Historical Perspective: 1880-1940 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), and Jennifer Platt, A History of Sociological Research Methods in America 1920-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Viewed over the century, the increased presence of the survey in government and the academy that these works document does seem to indicate an 'historical ascendance of the subjective realm', but for a harsher view, see Pierre Bourdieu, 'Epilogue: On the Possibility of a Field of World Sociology', in Bourdieu and James S. Coleman (eds), Social Theory for a Changing Society (New York: Russell Sage, 1991), 373-87, at 381: 'Never have the means of scientific production (and of the legitimate means of scholarly publication) been more concentrated in the hands of the positivist quantitativists'.
71. Jean M. Converse, Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890-1960 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 408-10. On the history of the survey interview, also see Martin Bulmer, Kevin Bales and Kathryn Kish Sklar (eds), The Social Survey in Historical Perspective: 1880-1940 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), and Jennifer Platt, A History of Sociological Research Methods in America 1920-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Viewed over the century, the increased presence of the survey in government and the academy that these works document does seem to indicate an 'historical ascendance of the subjective realm', but for a harsher view, see Pierre Bourdieu, 'Epilogue: On the Possibility of a Field of World Sociology', in Bourdieu and James S. Coleman (eds), Social Theory for a Changing Society (New York: Russell Sage, 1991), 373-87, at 381: 'Never have the means of scientific production (and of the legitimate means of scholarly publication) been more concentrated in the hands of the positivist quantitativists'.
72. Theodore M. Porter, Trust in Numbers (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), at 74.
73. Charles Camic and Yu Xie provide a related discussion about the adoption and use of statistical methods in the disciplines of psychology, anthropology, sociology and economics at Columbia University at the turn of the century. This proliferation, according to Camic and Xie, was due to scholars' efforts at legitimizing and differentiating each discipline within Columbia, and it also helped the University to achieve a measure of scientific distinction in the USA. Moreover, the local situation at Columbia provided a legacy for the 1915-30 period, when American social sciences made an even stronger move toward quantification, a legacy that '... rested on the premise that statistical work was the touchstone of science'; C. Camic and Yu Wie, 'The Statistical Turn in American Social Science: Columbia University, 1890 to 1915', American Sociological Review, Vol. 59, No. 5 (October 1994), 773-805, at 798.
74. Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1958). For a brief discussion of the notion of 'tacit knowledge', see Michel Callon, 'Four Models for the Dynamics of Science', in Jasanoff et al. (eds), op. cit. note 3, 29-63, at 42-43, and the work Callon cites.
75. Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1958). For a brief discussion of the notion of 'tacit knowledge', see Michel Callon, 'Four Models for the Dynamics of Science', in Jasanoff et al. (eds), op. cit. note 3, 29-63, at 42-43, and the work Callon cites.
76. Lynch, op. cit. note 29.
77. Don H. Zimmerman, 'The Practicalities of Rule Use', in Jack Douglas (ed.), Understanding Everyday Life (Chicago, IL: Aldine, 1970), 221-38.
78. Garfinkel, op. cit. note 6. See also Thomas P. Wilson, 'Sociology and the Mathematical Method', in Anthony Giddens and Jonathan Turner (eds), Social Theory Today (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987), 383-404. Wilson observes that between coding and the ultimate interpretation of data, mathematical modelling can be done and there can be a relatively unfettered logical rigour, but once computations are complete, they have no meaning without further interpretation and the consequent use of tacit knowledge to perform such interpretation.
79. Garfinkel, op. cit. note 6. See also Thomas P. Wilson, 'Sociology and the Mathematical Method', in Anthony Giddens and Jonathan Turner (eds), Social Theory Today (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987), 383-404. Wilson observes that between coding and the ultimate interpretation of data, mathematical modelling can be done and there can be a relatively unfettered logical rigour, but once computations are complete, they have no meaning without further interpretation and the consequent use of tacit knowledge to perform such interpretation.
80. Porter, op. cit. note 49, at 84, 214. See also Garfinkel, op. cit. note 6; Polanyi, op. cit. note 51, 64; and Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994). Finally, Stephen Turner's examination of the historical quest for a causal methodology in social science underscores that it is not only the production of impersonal numbers that requires the situated deployment of commonsense knowledge. Involved in the meaningful interpretation, modelling or explanation of such production - that is, of correlations and other statistical relationships - are a set of unstated practices that help generate some theoretically valid description of quantitatively expressed patterning of circumstances: see S.P. Turner, The Search for a Methodology of Social Science: Durkheim, Weber, and the Nineteenth-Century Problem of Cause, Probability, and Action (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1986), esp. 216-18.
81. Porter, op. cit. note 49, at 84, 214. See also Garfinkel, op. cit. note 6; Polanyi, op. cit. note 51, 64; and Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994). Finally, Stephen Turner's examination of the historical quest for a causal methodology in social science underscores that it is not only the production of impersonal numbers that requires the situated deployment of commonsense knowledge. Involved in the meaningful interpretation, modelling or explanation of such production - that is, of correlations and other statistical relationships - are a set of unstated practices that help generate some theoretically valid description of quantitatively expressed patterning of circumstances: see S.P. Turner, The Search for a Methodology of Social Science: Durkheim, Weber, and the Nineteenth-Century Problem of Cause, Probability, and Action (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1986), esp. 216-18.
82. Porter, op. cit. note 49, at 84, 214. See also Garfinkel, op. cit. note 6; Polanyi, op. cit. note 51, 64; and Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994). Finally, Stephen Turner's examination of the historical quest for a causal methodology in social science underscores that it is not only the production of impersonal numbers that requires the situated deployment of commonsense knowledge. Involved in the meaningful interpretation, modelling or explanation of such production - that is, of correlations and other statistical relationships - are a set of unstated practices that help generate some theoretically valid description of quantitatively expressed patterning of circumstances: see S.P. Turner, The Search for a Methodology of Social Science: Durkheim, Weber, and the Nineteenth-Century Problem of Cause, Probability, and Action (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1986), esp. 216-18.
83. Porter, op. cit. note 49, at 84, 214. See also Garfinkel, op. cit. note 6; Polanyi, op. cit. note 51, 64; and Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994). Finally, Stephen Turner's examination of the historical quest for a causal methodology in social science underscores that it is not only the production of impersonal numbers that requires the situated deployment of commonsense knowledge. Involved in the meaningful interpretation, modelling or explanation of such production - that is, of correlations and other statistical relationships - are a set of unstated practices that help generate some theoretically valid description of quantitatively expressed patterning of circumstances: see S.P. Turner, The Search for a Methodology of Social Science: Durkheim, Weber, and the Nineteenth-Century Problem of Cause, Probability, and Action (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1986), esp. 216-18.
84. Porter, op. cit. note 49, at 84, 214. See also Garfinkel, op. cit. note 6; Polanyi, op. cit. note 51, 64; and Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994). Finally, Stephen Turner's examination of the historical quest for a causal methodology in social science underscores that it is not only the production of impersonal numbers that requires the situated deployment of commonsense knowledge. Involved in the meaningful interpretation, modelling or explanation of such production - that is, of correlations and other statistical relationships - are a set of unstated practices that help generate some theoretically valid description of quantitatively expressed patterning of circumstances: see S.P. Turner, The Search for a Methodology of Social Science: Durkheim, Weber, and the Nineteenth-Century Problem of Cause, Probability, and Action (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1986), esp. 216-18.
85. Interviewers' work to obtain members of a sample has an effect on how well the sample represents a population; recruitment strategies thereby influence the overall quality of data: see Fowler & Mangione, op. cit. note 32, 12. Furthermore, it is recognized that rapport between interviewers and respondents is related to error in survey estimates, and that interviewer and respondent begin to establish their degree of rapport during the initial phase of the interview.
86. We put the terms in quotes here to denote that each one glosses a wide variety of specific methodological approaches.
87. Morris Zelditch, Jr, 'Some Methodological Problems of Field Studies', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 67, No. 5 (March 1962), 566-76, at 566. See also the discussion in Stephen Hester and David Francis, 'Doing Data: The Local Organization of a Sociological Interview', British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 45, No. 4 (December 1994), 675-95, at 676: they describe 'positivist' and 'interpretivist' ends of a spectrum in regard to methodological debates about interviewing.
88. Morris Zelditch, Jr, 'Some Methodological Problems of Field Studies', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 67, No. 5 (March 1962), 566-76, at 566. See also the discussion in Stephen Hester and David Francis, 'Doing Data: The Local Organization of a Sociological Interview', British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 45, No. 4 (December 1994), 675-95, at 676: they describe 'positivist' and 'interpretivist' ends of a spectrum in regard to methodological debates about interviewing.
89. Zelditch, op. cit. note 58, 576.
90. Lieberson, op. cit. note 1, 3.
91. Allen H. Barton and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, 'Some Functions of Qualitative Analysis in Social Research', in Seymour Martin Lipset and Neil Smelser (eds), Sociology, The Progress of a Decade (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1961), 95-122, at 119.
92. Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1957). Cf. Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, 'Discovery of Substantive Theory: A Basic Strategy Underlying Qualitative Research', in William J. Filstead (ed.), Qualitative Methodology: Firsthand Involvement with the Social World (Chicago, IL: Markham, 1970), 288-304, at 288.
93. Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1957). Cf. Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, 'Discovery of Substantive Theory: A Basic Strategy Underlying Qualitative Research', in William J. Filstead (ed.), Qualitative Methodology: Firsthand Involvement with the Social World (Chicago, IL: Markham, 1970), 288-304, at 288.
94. John R. Sutton, Frank Dobbin, John W. Meyer and W. Richard Scott, 'The Legalization of the Workplace', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99, No. 4 (January 1994), 944-71, at 952.
95. Robert K. Merton and Patricia L. Kendall, 'The Focused Interview', in Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg (eds), The Language of Social Research (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1955), 476-91, at 477 (emphasis in original).
96. Charles C. Ragan, The Comparative Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), esp. 71-78.
97. Edward Shorter and Charles Tilly, Strikes in France, 1830-1968 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974).
98. Ragan, op. cit. note 65, 73.
99. John Stephens, The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism (London: Macmillan, 1979).
100. Ragan, op. cit. note 65, 76-78.
101. In a provocative essay, Andrew Abbott has argued that the distinction between what we (following Ragan) are calling generalists and case-oriented approaches conflates distinctions that can be drawn between 'population' and 'case' approaches, on the one hand, and 'analytic' and 'narrative' approaches, on the other. Usually case approaches are taken to be narrative in character, whereas population approaches are taken to involve variable analysis. Abbott proposes that population-level studies can be narrative, encompassing both the detail of case activity and the generality of across-case patterning. See A. Abbott, 'What Do Cases Do? Some Notes on Activity in Sociological Analysis', in Charles C. Ragan and Howard S. Becker (eds), What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 53-82.
102. Judith Lessler and Mimi Holt, 'Using Response Protocols to Identify Problems in the US Census Long Form', in Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods of the American Statistical Association (Washington, DC: The American Statistical Association, 1987), 262-65; Nora Cate Schaeffer and Elizabeth Thomson, 'The Discovery of Grounded Uncertainty: Developing Standardized Questions about Strength of Fertility Motivation', in Peter Marsden (ed.), Sociological Methodology 1992 (Washington, DC: American Statistical Association, 1992), 37-82; Manuel de la Puente, 'Why Are People Missed or Erroneously Included by the Census? A Summary of Findings from Ethnographic Coverage Reports', in 1993 Research Conference on Undercounted Ethnic Populations: Proceedings (Richmond, VA: US Bureau of the Census, 1993), 29-66; and Matt T. Salo, Pamela C. Campanelli and Elizabeth A. Martin, 'Survey vs. Ethnographic Interviewing of Hard-to-Reach Populations', unpublished manuscript (Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, no date). An instance in which qualitative and quantitative methods were highly integrated is presented by William G. Axinn, Thomas E. Fricke and Arland Thorton, 'The Microdemographic Community Study Approach: Improving Survey Data by Integrating the Ethnographic Method', Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 20 (1991), 187-217.
103. Judith Lessler and Mimi Holt, 'Using Response Protocols to Identify Problems in the US Census Long Form', in Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods of the American Statistical Association (Washington, DC: The American Statistical Association, 1987), 262-65; Nora Cate Schaeffer and Elizabeth Thomson, 'The Discovery of Grounded Uncertainty: Developing Standardized Questions about Strength of Fertility Motivation', in Peter Marsden (ed.), Sociological Methodology 1992 (Washington, DC: American Statistical Association, 1992), 37-82; Manuel de la Puente, 'Why Are People Missed or Erroneously Included by the Census? A Summary of Findings from Ethnographic Coverage Reports', in 1993 Research Conference on Undercounted Ethnic Populations: Proceedings (Richmond, VA: US Bureau of the Census, 1993), 29-66; and Matt T. Salo, Pamela C. Campanelli and Elizabeth A. Martin, 'Survey vs. Ethnographic Interviewing of Hard-to-Reach Populations', unpublished manuscript (Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, no date). An instance in which qualitative and quantitative methods were highly integrated is presented by William G. Axinn, Thomas E. Fricke and Arland Thorton, 'The Microdemographic Community Study Approach: Improving Survey Data by Integrating the Ethnographic Method', Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 20 (1991), 187-217.
104. Judith Lessler and Mimi Holt, 'Using Response Protocols to Identify Problems in the US Census Long Form', in Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods of the American Statistical Association (Washington, DC: The American Statistical Association, 1987), 262-65; Nora Cate Schaeffer and Elizabeth Thomson, 'The Discovery of Grounded Uncertainty: Developing Standardized Questions about Strength of Fertility Motivation', in Peter Marsden (ed.), Sociological Methodology 1992 (Washington, DC: American Statistical Association, 1992), 37-82; Manuel de la Puente, 'Why Are People Missed or Erroneously Included by the Census? A Summary of Findings from Ethnographic Coverage Reports', in 1993 Research Conference on Undercounted Ethnic Populations: Proceedings (Richmond, VA: US Bureau of the Census, 1993), 29-66; and Matt T. Salo, Pamela C. Campanelli and Elizabeth A. Martin, 'Survey vs. Ethnographic Interviewing of Hard-to-Reach Populations', unpublished manuscript (Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, no date). An instance in which qualitative and quantitative methods were highly integrated is presented by William G. Axinn, Thomas E. Fricke and Arland Thorton, 'The Microdemographic Community Study Approach: Improving Survey Data by Integrating the Ethnographic Method', Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 20 (1991), 187-217.
105. Judith Lessler and Mimi Holt, 'Using Response Protocols to Identify Problems in the US Census Long Form', in Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods of the American Statistical Association (Washington, DC: The American Statistical Association, 1987), 262-65; Nora Cate Schaeffer and Elizabeth Thomson, 'The Discovery of Grounded Uncertainty: Developing Standardized Questions about Strength of Fertility Motivation', in Peter Marsden (ed.), Sociological Methodology 1992 (Washington, DC: American Statistical
106. Judith Lessler and Mimi Holt, 'Using Response Protocols to Identify Problems in the US Census Long Form', in Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods of the American Statistical Association (Washington, DC: The American Statistical Association, 1987), 262-65; Nora Cate Schaeffer and Elizabeth Thomson, 'The Discovery of Grounded Uncertainty: Developing Standardized Questions about Strength of Fertility Motivation', in Peter Marsden (ed.), Sociological Methodology 1992 (Washington, DC: American Statistical Association, 1992), 37-82; Manuel de la Puente, 'Why Are People Missed or Erroneously Included by the Census? A Summary of Findings from Ethnographic Coverage Reports', in 1993 Research Conference on Undercounted Ethnic Populations: Proceedings (Richmond, VA: US Bureau of the Census, 1993), 29-66; and Matt T. Salo, Pamela C. Campanelli and Elizabeth A. Martin, 'Survey vs. Ethnographic Interviewing of Hard-to-Reach Populations', unpublished manuscript (Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, no date). An instance in which qualitative and quantitative methods were highly integrated is presented by William G. Axinn, Thomas E. Fricke and Arland Thorton, 'The Microdemographic Community Study Approach: Improving Survey Data by Integrating the Ethnographic Method', Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 20 (1991), 187-217.
107. In a series of publications spanning three decades (the 1960s through the 1980s), Cicourel has pursued a variety of issues surrounding the conduct of SR. See Aaron V. Cicourel, Method and Measurement in Sociology (New York: The Free Press, 1963); Cicourel, Theory and Method in a Study of Argentine Fertility (New York: Wiley, 1974); and Cicourel, 'Interviews, Surveys, and the Problem of Ecological Validity', The American Sociologist, Vol. 17 (February 1982), 11-20.
108. In a series of publications spanning three decades (the 1960s through the 1980s), Cicourel has pursued a variety of issues surrounding the conduct of SR. See Aaron V. Cicourel, Method and Measurement in Sociology (New York: The Free Press, 1963); Cicourel, Theory and Method in a Study of Argentine Fertility (New York: Wiley, 1974); and Cicourel, 'Interviews, Surveys, and the Problem of Ecological Validity', The American Sociologist, Vol. 17 (February 1982), 11-20.
109. In a series of publications spanning three decades (the 1960s through the 1980s), Cicourel has pursued a variety of issues surrounding the conduct of SR. See Aaron V. Cicourel, Method and Measurement in Sociology (New York: The Free Press, 1963); Cicourel, Theory and Method in a Study of Argentine Fertility (New York: Wiley, 1974); and Cicourel, 'Interviews, Surveys, and the Problem of Ecological Validity', The American Sociologist, Vol. 17 (February 1982), 11-20.
110. Charles L. Briggs, Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Elliot G. Mishler, Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986); Barry Saferstein, 'Interpretation Activities and Public Opinion Processes', Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Vol. 11 (1994), 298-314. For an interactional approach to an evaluation research interview that takes a constructionist rather than remedial tone, see James A. Holstein and William G. Staples, 'Producing Evaluative Knowledge: The Interactional Bases of Social Science Findings', Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Winter 1992), 11-35.
111. Charles L. Briggs, Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Elliot G. Mishler, Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986); Barry Saferstein, 'Interpretation Activities and Public Opinion Processes', Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Vol. 11 (1994), 298-314. For an interactional approach to an evaluation research interview that takes a constructionist rather than remedial tone, see James A. Holstein and William G. Staples, 'Producing Evaluative Knowledge: The Interactional Bases of Social Science Findings', Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Winter 1992), 11-35.
112. Charles L. Briggs, Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Elliot G. Mishler, Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986); Barry Saferstein, 'Interpretation Activities and Public Opinion Processes', Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Vol. 11 (1994), 298-314. For an interactional approach to an evaluation research interview that takes a constructionist rather than remedial tone, see James A. Holstein and William G. Staples, 'Producing Evaluative Knowledge: The Interactional Bases of Social Science Findings', Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Winter 1992), 11-35.
113. Charles L. Briggs, Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Elliot G. Mishler, Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986); Barry Saferstein, 'Interpretation Activities and Public Opinion Processes', Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Vol. 11 (1994), 298-314. For an interactional approach to an evaluation research interview that takes a constructionist rather than remedial tone, see James A. Holstein and William G. Staples, 'Producing Evaluative Knowledge: The Interactional Bases of Social Science Findings', Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Winter 1992), 11-35.
114. Cicourel (1974), op. cit. note 72, at 196, 128.
115. Mishler op. cit. note 73, 22-23.
116. Ibid., 93; Briggs, op. cit. note 73, 45; Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 111.
117. Ibid., 93; Briggs, op. cit. note 73, 45; Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 111.
118. Ibid., 93; Briggs, op. cit. note 73, 45; Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 111.
119. Ibid., 21.
120. Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 23-24. On both sides of the interview, then, commonsense and sociocultural meanings are used, but survey researchers do not adequately take them into analytical account, and this undermines the validity of the interview and data it generates, according to Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 84. Beyond investigator's and respondent's meanings taken separately, however, qualitative researchers suggest that together, the parties engage in interpretive work to decide upon or even 'negotiate' the appropriateness of any given response: Cicourel (1974), op. cit. note 72, 85, 95. Thus, answers and interview data stem not from relatively clean responses to indifferent or neutral stimuli but from the joint activities of both parties, wherein interviewer and respondent mutually 'create' or achieve meaning through their discourse: Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 53-54. The point about the co-construction of answers has also been made in regard to intelligence and educational testing: see Courtney L. Marlaire and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Standardized Testing as an Interactional Phenomenon', Sociology of Education, Vol. 63, No. 2 (April 1990), 83-101; Maynard and Marlaire, 'Good Reasons for Bad Testing Performance: The Interactional Substrate of Educational Exams', Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1992), 177-202; and Hugh Mehan, 'Assessing Children's Language Using Abilities: Methodological and Cross Cultural Implications', in Michael Armer and Allen D. Grimshaw (eds), Comparative Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies (New York: Wiley, 1973), 309-43. This is a point with which we agree. However, what we make of it is a different matter. As argued below, we do not think that appreciation of the mutual achievement or co-construction within interviews necessitates a stance of critical remediation.
121. Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 23-24. On both sides of the interview, then, commonsense and sociocultural meanings are used, but survey researchers do not adequately take them into analytical account, and this undermines the validity of the interview and data it generates, according to Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 84. Beyond investigator's and respondent's meanings taken separately, however, qualitative researchers suggest that together, the parties engage in interpretive work to decide upon or even 'negotiate' the appropriateness of any given response: Cicourel (1974), op. cit. note 72, 85, 95. Thus, answers and interview data stem not from relatively clean responses to indifferent or neutral stimuli but from the joint activities of both parties, wherein interviewer and respondent mutually 'create' or achieve meaning through their discourse: Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 53-54. The point about the co-construction of answers has also been made in regard to intelligence and educational testing: see Courtney L. Marlaire and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Standardized Testing as an Interactional Phenomenon', Sociology of Education, Vol. 63, No. 2 (April 1990), 83-101; Maynard and Marlaire, 'Good Reasons for Bad Testing Performance: The Interactional Substrate of Educational Exams', Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1992), 177-202; and Hugh Mehan, 'Assessing Children's Language Using Abilities: Methodological and Cross Cultural Implications', in Michael Armer and Allen D. Grimshaw (eds), Comparative Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies (New York: Wiley, 1973), 309-43. This is a point with which we agree. However, what we make of it is a different matter. As argued below, we do not think that appreciation of the mutual achievement or co-construction within interviews necessitates a stance of critical remediation.
122. Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 23-24. On both sides of the interview, then, commonsense and sociocultural meanings are used, but survey researchers do not adequately take them into analytical account, and this undermines the validity of the interview and data it generates, according to Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 84. Beyond investigator's and respondent's meanings taken separately, however, qualitative researchers suggest that together, the parties engage in interpretive work to decide upon or even 'negotiate' the appropriateness of any given response: Cicourel (1974), op. cit. note 72, 85, 95. Thus, answers and interview data stem not from relatively clean responses to indifferent or neutral stimuli but from the joint activities of both parties, wherein interviewer and respondent mutually 'create' or achieve meaning through their discourse: Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 53-54. The point about the co-construction of answers has also been made in regard to intelligence and educational testing: see Courtney L. Marlaire and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Standardized Testing as an Interactional Phenomenon', Sociology of Education, Vol. 63, No. 2 (April 1990), 83-101; Maynard and Marlaire, 'Good Reasons for Bad Testing Performance: The Interactional Substrate of Educational Exams', Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1992), 177-202; and Hugh Mehan, 'Assessing Children's Language Using Abilities: Methodological and Cross Cultural Implications', in Michael Armer and Allen D. Grimshaw (eds), Comparative Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies (New York: Wiley, 1973), 309-43. This is a point with which we agree. However, what we make of it is a different matter. As argued below, we do not think that appreciation of the mutual achievement or co-construction within interviews necessitates a stance of critical remediation.
123. Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 23-24. On both sides of the interview, then, commonsense and sociocultural meanings are used, but survey researchers do not adequately take them into analytical account, and this undermines the validity of the interview and data it generates, according to Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 84. Beyond investigator's and respondent's meanings taken separately, however, qualitative researchers suggest that together, the parties engage in interpretive work to decide upon or even 'negotiate' the appropriateness of any given response: Cicourel (1974), op. cit. note 72, 85, 95. Thus, answers and interview data stem not from relatively clean responses to indifferent or neutral stimuli but from the joint activities of both parties, wherein interviewer and respondent mutually 'create' or achieve meaning through their discourse: Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 53-54. The point about the co-construction of answers has also been made in regard to intelligence and educational testing: see Courtney L. Marlaire and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Standardized Testing as an Interactional Phenomenon', Sociology of Education, Vol. 63, No. 2 (April 1990), 83-101; Maynard and Marlaire, 'Good Reasons for Bad Testing Performance: The Interactional Substrate of Educational Exams', Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1992), 177-202; and Hugh Mehan, 'Assessing Children's Language Using Abilities: Methodological and Cross Cultural Implications', in Michael Armer and Allen D. Grimshaw (eds), Comparative Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies (New York: Wiley, 1973), 309-43. This is a point with which we agree. However, what we make of it is a different matter. As argued below, we do not think that appreciation of the mutual achievement or co-construction within interviews necessitates a stance of critical remediation.
124. Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 23-24. On both sides of the interview, then, commonsense and sociocultural meanings are used, but survey researchers do not adequately take them into analytical account, and this undermines the validity of the interview and data it generates, according to Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 84. Beyond investigator's and respondent's meanings taken separately, however, qualitative researchers suggest that together, the parties engage in interpretive work to decide upon or even 'negotiate' the appropriateness of any given response: Cicourel (1974), op. cit. note 72, 85, 95. Thus, answers and interview data stem not from relatively clean responses to indifferent or neutral stimuli but from the joint activities of both parties, wherein interviewer and respondent mutually 'create' or achieve meaning through their discourse: Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 53-54. The point about the co-construction of answers has also been made in regard to intelligence and educational testing: see Courtney L. Marlaire and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Standardized Testing as an Interactional Phenomenon', Sociology of Education, Vol. 63, No. 2 (April 1990), 83-101; Maynard and Marlaire, 'Good Reasons for Bad Testing Performance: The Interactional Substrate of Educational Exams', Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1992), 177-202; and Hugh Mehan, 'Assessing Children's Language Using Abilities: Methodological and Cross Cultural Implications', in Michael Armer and Allen D. Grimshaw (eds), Comparative Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies (New York: Wiley, 1973), 309-43. This is a point with which we agree. However, what we make of it is a different matter. As argued below, we do not think that appreciation of the mutual achievement or co-construction within interviews necessitates a stance of critical remediation.
125. Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 23-24. On both sides of the interview, then, commonsense and sociocultural meanings are used, but survey researchers do not adequately take them into analytical account, and this undermines the validity of the interview and data it generates, according to Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 84. Beyond investigator's and respondent's meanings taken separately, however, qualitative researchers suggest that together, the parties engage in interpretive work to decide upon or even 'negotiate' the appropriateness of any given response: Cicourel (1974), op. cit. note 72, 85, 95. Thus, answers and interview data stem not from relatively clean responses to indifferent or neutral stimuli but from the joint activities of both parties, wherein interviewer and respondent mutually 'create' or achieve meaning through their discourse: Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 53-54. The point about the co-construction of answers has also been made in regard to intelligence and educational testing: see Courtney L. Marlaire and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Standardized Testing as an Interactional Phenomenon', Sociology of Education, Vol. 63, No. 2 (April 1990), 83-101; Maynard and Marlaire, 'Good Reasons for Bad Testing Performance: The Interactional Substrate of Educational Exams', Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1992), 177-202; and Hugh Mehan, 'Assessing Children's Language Using Abilities: Methodological and Cross Cultural Implications', in Michael Armer and Allen D. Grimshaw (eds), Comparative Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies (New York: Wiley, 1973), 309-43. This is a point with which we agree. However, what we make of it is a different matter. As argued below, we do not think that appreciation of the mutual achievement or co-construction within interviews necessitates a stance of critical remediation.
126. Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 23-24. On both sides of the interview, then, commonsense and sociocultural meanings are used, but survey researchers do not adequately take them into analytical account, and this undermines the validity of the interview and data it generates, according to Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 84. Beyond investigator's and respondent's meanings taken separately, however, qualitative researchers suggest that together, the parties engage in interpretive work to decide upon or even 'negotiate' the appropriateness of any given response: Cicourel (1974), op. cit. note 72, 85, 95. Thus, answers and interview data stem not from relatively clean responses to indifferent or neutral stimuli but from the joint activities of both parties, wherein interviewer and respondent mutually 'create' or achieve meaning through their discourse: Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 53-54. The point about the co-construction of answers has also been made in regard to intelligence and educational testing: see Courtney L. Marlaire and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Standardized Testing as an Interactional Phenomenon', Sociology of Education, Vol. 63, No. 2 (April 1990), 83-101; Maynard and Marlaire, 'Good Reasons for Bad Testing Performance: The Interactional Substrate of Educational Exams', Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1992), 177-202; and Hugh Mehan, 'Assessing Children's Language Using Abilities: Methodological and Cross Cultural Implications', in Michael Armer and Allen D. Grimshaw (eds), Comparative Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies (New York: Wiley, 1973), 309-43. This is a point with which we agree. However, what we make of it is a different matter. As argued below, we do not think that appreciation of the mutual achievement or co-construction within interviews necessitates a stance of critical remediation.
127. Robert L. Kahn and Charles F. Cannell, The Dynamics of Interviewing: Theory, Technique, and Cases (New York: Wiley, 1957), 16.
128. Louise H. Kidder, Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1981), 146.
129. Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 108, 198. See Michael Lynch's discussion of the 'remedial register' in Cicourel's work: Lynch, op. cit. note 29, 84-85.
130. Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 108, 198. See Michael Lynch's discussion of the 'remedial register' in Cicourel's work: Lynch, op. cit. note 29, 84-85.
131. Cicourel (1974), op. cit. note 72, 196, 179.
132. Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 12.
133. Briggs, op. cit. note 73, 39.
134. Lucy Suchman and Brigitte Jordan, 'Interactional Troubles in Face-to-Face Survey Interviews', Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85, No. 409 (March 1990), 232-41, at 232.
135. Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 87. When Lynch (op. cit. note 29, 84-88) discusses the 'remedial register' in Cicourel's work and the presumption that 'literal measurement' is possible in survey research, he observes that they are in stark contrast to Garfinkel's study of coding instructions and the irremediable use of ad hoc considerations by which those instructions are made to work in relation to singular cases. For the study of coding, see Garfinkel, op. cit. note 6.
136. Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 87. When Lynch (op. cit. note 29, 84-88) discusses the 'remedial register' in Cicourel's work and the presumption that 'literal measurement' is possible in survey research, he observes that they are in stark contrast to Garfinkel's study of coding instructions and the irremediable use of ad hoc considerations by which those instructions are made to work in relation to singular cases. For the study of coding, see Garfinkel, op. cit. note 6.
137. Cicourel (1963), op. cit. note 72, 87. When Lynch (op. cit. note 29, 84-88) discusses the 'remedial register' in Cicourel's work and the presumption that 'literal measurement' is possible in survey research, he observes that they are in stark contrast to Garfinkel's study of coding instructions and the irremediable use of ad hoc considerations by which those instructions are made to work in relation to singular cases. For the study of coding, see Garfinkel, op. cit. note 6.
138. Cicourel (1974), op. cit. note 72, 14, 148.
139. Mishler, op. cit. note 73, 132, 137.
140. For collected conversation analytic studies of work settings, see Deirdre Boden and Don H. Zimmerman (eds), Talk and Social Structure (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), and Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For collected ethnomethodological studies of work settings, see Harold Garfinkel (ed.), Ethnomethodological Studies of Work (London: Routledge, 1986), and Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction, and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
141. For collected conversation analytic studies of work settings, see Deirdre Boden and Don H. Zimmerman (eds), Talk and Social Structure (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), and Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For collected ethnomethodological studies of work settings, see Harold Garfinkel (ed.), Ethnomethodological Studies of Work (London: Routledge, 1986), and Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction, and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
142. For collected conversation analytic studies of work settings, see Deirdre Boden and Don H. Zimmerman (eds), Talk and Social Structure (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), and Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For collected ethnomethodological studies of work settings, see Harold Garfinkel (ed.), Ethnomethodological Studies of Work (London: Routledge, 1986), and Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction, and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
143. For collected conversation analytic studies of work settings, see Deirdre Boden and Don H. Zimmerman (eds), Talk and Social Structure (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), and Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For collected ethnomethodological studies of work settings, see Harold Garfinkel (ed.), Ethnomethodological Studies of Work (London: Routledge, 1986), and Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction, and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
144. Edmund Husserl, The Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1970).
145. See a discussion of the 'interpretive paradigm' in Thomas P. Wilson, 'Conceptions of Interaction and Forms of Sociological Explanation', American Sociological Review, Vol. 35, No. 4 (August 1970), 697-710.
146. The two existing attempts to describe something of the work world of the survey interviewer that we have been able to locate adopt very different perspectives. Jean M. Converse and Howard Schuman, in their Conversations at Random: Survey Research as Interviewers See It (New York: Wiley, 1974), collected anecdotes that attempt to capture the flavour of the work interviewers do. Jean Peneff, in 'The Observers Observed: French Survey Researchers at Work', Social Problems, Vol. 35, No. 5 (December 1988), 520-35, describes the work done by French interviewers as that of 'hired hands', who bend the 'rules' in ways of which their superiors are ignorant, or to which they acquiesce so as to get the work done. The first of these studies is not intended to be about the practice of science, and the second proceeds from the stance of critical remediation that we have characterized above.
147. The two existing attempts to describe something of the work world of the survey interviewer that we have been able to locate adopt very different perspectives. Jean M. Converse and Howard Schuman, in their Conversations at Random: Survey Research as Interviewers See It (New York: Wiley, 1974), collected anecdotes that attempt to capture the flavour of the work interviewers do. Jean Peneff, in 'The Observers Observed: French Survey Researchers at Work', Social Problems, Vol. 35, No. 5 (December 1988), 520-35, describes the work done by French interviewers as that of 'hired hands', who bend the 'rules' in ways of which their superiors are ignorant, or to which they acquiesce so as to get the work done. The first of these studies is not intended to be about the practice of science, and the second proceeds from the stance of critical remediation that we have characterized above.
148. In his review of Cicourel's Theory and Method in the Study of Argentine Fertility (op. cit. note 72), Larry L. Bumpass charged that the book was a polemic ignoring the survey tradition's self-criticism and scrutiny on the very topics that Cicourel addressed. 'There is', Bumpass noted, 'an extensive and growing body of research on these problems that is completely ignored in Cicourel's work': L.L. Bumpass, 'Review Symposium', Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 4, No. 3 (October 1975), 474-76, at 476. Perhaps such a charge could be seen as defensiveness from a prominent demographer whose own mode of inquiry was at stake. On the other hand, it may index a real inadequacy in the qualitative critique of survey research, which is the tendency to avoid immersion in the world of the researcher and interviewer in the way that it is recommended the researcher and interviewer enter the world of the respondent. See also the exchange between Cicourel (1982), op. cit. note 72, and Schuman, op. cit. note 45. Finally, consider the remarks about formal analytic inquiry (of which SR is one kind) by Harold Garfinkel, 'An Overview of Ethnomethodology's Program', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 1 (March 1996), 5-21 at 8: There have been authors of ethnomethodological studies whose reputations were promoted by offering to the members of the worldwide social science movement ways of upgrading their craft. 'Your science is cockeyed. We need to sit down and diagnose for you just where you're going wrong'. Ethnomethodology has yet to deliver promised repairs to formal analytic social scientific enterprises without losing its own phenomena. See also Lynch's remark (op. cit. note 29, 85): 'Despite the promise running throughout his text, Cicourel delivers virtually nothing of technical value for the committed survey researcher' (original emphasis).
149. In his review of Cicourel's Theory and Method in the Study of Argentine Fertility (op. cit. note 72), Larry L. Bumpass charged that the book was a polemic ignoring the survey tradition's self-criticism and scrutiny on the very topics that Cicourel addressed. 'There is', Bumpass noted, 'an extensive and growing body of research on these problems that is completely ignored in Cicourel's work': L.L. Bumpass, 'Review Symposium', Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 4, No. 3 (October 1975), 474-76, at 476. Perhaps such a charge could be seen as defensiveness from a prominent demographer whose own mode of inquiry was at stake. On the other hand, it may index a real inadequacy in the qualitative critique of survey research, which is the tendency to avoid immersion in the world of the researcher and interviewer in the way that it is recommended the researcher and interviewer enter the world of the respondent. See also the exchange between Cicourel (1982), op. cit. note 72, and Schuman, op. cit. note 45. Finally, consider the remarks about formal analytic inquiry (of which SR is one kind) by Harold Garfinkel, 'An Overview of Ethnomethodology's Program', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 1 (March 1996), 5-21 at 8: There have been authors of ethnomethodological studies whose reputations were promoted by offering to the members of the worldwide social science movement ways of upgrading their craft. 'Your science is cockeyed. We need to sit down and diagnose for you just where you're going wrong'. Ethnomethodology has yet to deliver promised repairs to formal analytic social scientific enterprises without losing its own phenomena. See also Lynch's remark (op. cit. note 29, 85): 'Despite the promise running throughout his text, Cicourel delivers virtually nothing of technical value for the committed survey researcher' (original emphasis).
150. In his review of Cicourel's Theory and Method in the Study of Argentine Fertility (op. cit. note 72), Larry L. Bumpass charged that the book was a polemic ignoring the survey tradition's self-criticism and scrutiny on the very topics that Cicourel addressed. 'There is', Bumpass noted, 'an extensive and growing body of research on these problems that is completely ignored in Cicourel's work': L.L. Bumpass, 'Review Symposium', Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 4, No. 3 (October 1975), 474-76, at 476. Perhaps such a charge could be seen as defensiveness from a prominent demographer whose own mode of inquiry was at stake. On the other hand, it may index a real inadequacy in the qualitative critique of survey research, which is the tendency to avoid immersion in the world of the researcher and interviewer in the way that it is recommended the researcher and interviewer enter the world of the respondent. See also the exchange between Cicourel (1982), op. cit. note 72, and Schuman, op. cit. note 45. Finally, consider the remarks about formal analytic inquiry (of which SR is one kind) by Harold Garfinkel, 'An Overview of Ethnomethodology's Program', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 1 (March 1996), 5-21 at 8: There have been authors of ethnomethodological studies whose reputations were promoted by offering to the members of the worldwide social science movement ways of upgrading their craft. 'Your science is cockeyed. We need to sit down and diagnose for you just where you're going wrong'. Ethnomethodology has yet to deliver promised repairs to formal analytic social scientific enterprises without losing its own phenomena. See also Lynch's remark (op. cit. note 29, 85): 'Despite the promise running throughout his text, Cicourel delivers virtually nothing of technical value for the committed survey researcher' (original emphasis).
151. In his review of Cicourel's Theory and Method in the Study of Argentine Fertility (op. cit. note 72), Larry L. Bumpass charged that the book was a polemic ignoring the survey tradition's self-criticism and scrutiny on the very topics that Cicourel addressed. 'There is', Bumpass noted, 'an extensive and growing body of research on these problems that is completely ignored in Cicourel's work': L.L. Bumpass, 'Review Symposium', Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 4, No. 3 (October 1975), 474-76, at 476. Perhaps such a charge could be seen as defensiveness from a prominent demographer whose own mode of inquiry was at stake. On the other hand, it may index a real inadequacy in the qualitative critique of survey research, which is the tendency to avoid immersion in the world of the researcher and interviewer in the way that it is recommended the researcher and interviewer enter the world of the respondent. See also the exchange between Cicourel (1982), op. cit. note 72, and Schuman, op. cit. note 45. Finally, consider the remarks about formal analytic inquiry (of which SR is one kind) by Harold Garfinkel, 'An Overview of Ethnomethodology's Program', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 1 (March 1996), 5-21 at 8: There have been authors of ethnomethodological studies whose reputations were promoted by offering to the members of the worldwide social science movement ways of upgrading their craft. 'Your science is cockeyed. We need to sit down and diagnose for you just where you're going wrong'. Ethnomethodology has yet to deliver promised repairs to formal analytic social scientific enterprises without losing its own phenomena. See also Lynch's remark (op. cit. note 29, 85): 'Despite the promise running throughout his text, Cicourel delivers virtually nothing of technical value for the committed survey researcher' (original emphasis).
152. In his review of Cicourel's Theory and Method in the Study of Argentine Fertility (op. cit. note 72), Larry L. Bumpass charged that the book was a polemic ignoring the survey tradition's self-criticism and scrutiny on the very topics that Cicourel addressed. 'There is', Bumpass noted, 'an extensive and growing body of research on these problems that is completely ignored in Cicourel's work': L.L. Bumpass, 'Review Symposium', Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 4, No. 3 (October 1975), 474-76, at 476. Perhaps such a charge could be seen as defensiveness from a prominent demographer whose own mode of inquiry was at stake. On the other hand, it may index a real inadequacy in the qualitative critique of survey research, which is the tendency to avoid immersion in the world of the researcher and interviewer in the way that it is recommended the researcher and interviewer enter the world of the respondent. See also the exchange between Cicourel (1982), op. cit. note 72, and Schuman, op. cit. note 45. Finally, consider the remarks about formal analytic inquiry (of which SR is one kind) by Harold Garfinkel, 'An Overview of Ethnomethodology's Program', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 1 (March 1996), 5-21 at 8: There have been authors of ethnomethodological studies whose reputations were promoted by offering to the members of the worldwide social science movement ways of upgrading their craft. 'Your science is cockeyed. We need to sit down and diagnose for you just where you're going wrong'. Ethnomethodology has yet to deliver promised repairs to formal analytic social scientific enterprises without losing its own phenomena. See also Lynch's remark (op. cit. note 29, 85): 'Despite the promise running throughout his text, Cicourel delivers virtually nothing of technical value for the committed survey researcher' (original emphasis).
153. In his review of Cicourel's Theory and Method in the Study of Argentine Fertility (op. cit. note 72), Larry L. Bumpass charged that the book was a polemic ignoring the survey tradition's self-criticism and scrutiny on the very topics that Cicourel addressed. 'There is', Bumpass noted, 'an extensive and growing body of research on these problems that is completely ignored in Cicourel's work': L.L. Bumpass, 'Review Symposium', Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 4, No. 3 (October 1975), 474-76, at 476. Perhaps such a charge could be seen as defensiveness from a prominent demographer whose own mode of inquiry was at stake. On the other hand, it may index a real inadequacy in the qualitative critique of survey research, which is the tendency to avoid immersion in the world of the researcher and interviewer in the way that it is recommended the researcher and interviewer enter the world of the respondent. See also the exchange between Cicourel (1982), op. cit. note 72, and Schuman, op. cit. note 45. Finally, consider the remarks about formal analytic inquiry (of which SR is one kind) by Harold Garfinkel, 'An Overview of Ethnomethodology's Program', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 1 (March 1996), 5-21 at 8: There have been authors of ethnomethodological studies whose reputations were promoted by offering to the members of the worldwide social science movement ways of upgrading their craft. 'Your science is cockeyed. We need to sit down and diagnose for you just where you're going wrong'. Ethnomethodology has yet to deliver promised repairs to formal analytic social scientific enterprises without losing its own phenomena. See also Lynch's remark (op. cit. note 29, 85): 'Despite the promise running throughout his text, Cicourel delivers virtually nothing of technical value for the committed survey researcher' (original emphasis).
154. Zaller, op. cit. note 45, 4.
155. Garfinkel, Lynch & Livingston, op. cit. note 7.
156. Karin D. Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981), 34.
157. Andrew Pickering, "The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99, No. 3 (November 1993), 559-89, at 567.
158. Garfinkel, op. cit. note 93, 19.
159. For an extended discussion of the survey instrument and its administration as an instance of 'instructed action' in the ethnomethodological sense, see Michael Lynch, 'The Living Text: Written Instructions and Situated Actions in Telephone Surveys', in Douglas W. Maynard, Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, Nora Cate Schaeffer and Hans van der Zouwen (eds), Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview (New York: Wiley, forthcoming).
160. Harold Garfinkel, 'Evidence for Locally Produced, Naturally Accountable Phenomena of Order, Logic, Reason, Meaning, Method, etc. in and as of the Essential Quiddity of Immortal Ordinary Society (I of IV): An Announcement of Studies', Sociological Theory, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring 1988), 103-09, at 107.
161. Garfinkel, ibid., 104-05.
162. Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, 'Meeting Both Ends: Standardization and Recipient Design in Telephone Survey Interviews', in Paul ten Have and George Psathas (eds), Situated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995), 91-106.
163. Nora Cate Schaeffer and Douglas W. Maynard, 'From Paradigm to Prototype and Back Again: Interactive Aspects of "Cognitive Processing" in Standardized Survey Interviews', in Norbert Schwarz and Seymour Sudman (eds), Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicating Processes in Survey Research (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1996), 75-88.
164. Suchman & Jordan, op. cit. note 85.
165. Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra and Charles Antaki, 'Creating Happy People by Asking Yes-No Questions', Research on Language and Social Interaction, Vol. 30, No. 4 (1997), 285-313.
166. Cicourel (1974), op. cit. note 72, 85, observes that survey measurement reflects the 'structure of interaction' in various ways. Such interactional structure includes 'negotiating' the recruitment of subjects and 'the need to convince the respondent to complete the interview'.
167. Clarke & Fujimura, op. cit. note 20, 6.
168. We have already discussed the relevance of ethnomethodology, and its 'studies of work', for the investigation of survey practice. Like ethnomethodology, conversation analysis adopts a 'bottom up' approach to the analysis of produced social orders, as these orders reside in the details of lived actions and social interactions. It shares with ethnomethodology a concern with commonsense reasoning, commonsense practices, and finding the locus of order in the situated, concerted, collaboratively-produced courses of actions, rather than, for example, in rules, categorical identities, types of settings, or other abstract and generalized social structures: Steven E. Clayman and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis', in ten Have & Psathas (eds), op. cit. note 102, 1-30. Conversation analysis distinguishes itself by concentrating on the specific arena of what Emanuel A. Schegloff calls 'talk-in-interaction' (E.A. Schegloff, 'Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2 [June 1987], 101-14), and on sequencing and other means by which utterances with their indexical properties can have local understandability and coherence (John Heritage, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology [Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984], Chapter 8). With regard to conversation analysis and the survey interview per se, see Suchman & Jordan, op. cit. note 85; on the latter article, Schegloff remarks: Although an interview cannot in any case be like a thermometer ... reliable exploitation even of a thermometer requires knowing the properties of mercury, the glass in which it is encased, and so on, and incorporating these properties in the extraction of the desired information from the measurement device. It is by no means clear that we have such elementary understanding of the constitutive components of the survey interview ... a more general inquiry into the features of the survey interview as an organized occasion of talk-in-interaction may help us think through in a thoroughly informed way how exactly to understand the methodological, epistemological, and theoretical features and status of the interview as a tool of inquiry. E.A. Schegloff, 'Comment', Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85, No. 409 (March 1990), 248-50, at 249. This observation resonates with Otis Duncan's suggestion that '... a theory of the interactions of society with measurements of society could increase our understanding of social history and of social science a great deal': Duncan, op. cit. note 28, 112-13.
169. We have already discussed the relevance of ethnomethodology, and its 'studies of work', for the investigation of survey practice. Like ethnomethodology, conversation analysis adopts a 'bottom up' approach to the analysis of produced social orders, as these orders reside in the details of lived actions and social interactions. It shares with ethnomethodology a concern with commonsense reasoning, commonsense practices, and finding the locus of order in the situated, concerted, collaboratively-produced courses of actions, rather than, for example, in rules, categorical identities, types of settings, or other abstract and generalized social structures: Steven E. Clayman and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis', in ten Have & Psathas (eds), op. cit. note 102, 1-30. Conversation analysis distinguishes itself by concentrating on the specific arena of what Emanuel A. Schegloff calls 'talk-in-interaction' (E.A. Schegloff, 'Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2 [June 1987], 101-14), and on sequencing and other means by which utterances with their indexical properties can have local understandability and coherence (John Heritage, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology [Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984], Chapter 8). With regard to conversation analysis and the survey interview per se, see Suchman & Jordan, op. cit. note 85; on the latter article, Schegloff remarks: Although an interview cannot in any case be like a thermometer ... reliable exploitation even of a thermometer requires knowing the properties of mercury, the glass in which it is encased, and so on, and incorporating these properties in the extraction of the desired information from the measurement device. It is by no means clear that we have such elementary understanding of the constitutive components of the survey interview ... a more general inquiry into the features of the survey interview as an organized occasion of talk-in-interaction may help us think through in a thoroughly informed way how exactly to understand the methodological, epistemological, and theoretical features and status of the interview as a tool of inquiry. E.A. Schegloff, 'Comment', Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85, No. 409 (March 1990), 248-50, at 249. This observation resonates with Otis Duncan's suggestion that '... a theory of the interactions of society with measurements of society could increase our understanding of social history and of social science a great deal': Duncan, op. cit. note 28, 112-13.
170. We have already discussed the relevance of ethnomethodology, and its 'studies of work', for the investigation of survey practice. Like ethnomethodology, conversation analysis adopts a 'bottom up' approach to the analysis of produced social orders, as these orders reside in the details of lived actions and social interactions. It shares with ethnomethodology a concern with commonsense reasoning, commonsense practices, and finding the locus of order in the situated, concerted, collaboratively-produced courses of actions, rather than, for example, in rules, categorical identities, types of settings, or other abstract and generalized social structures: Steven E. Clayman and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis', in ten Have & Psathas (eds), op. cit. note 102, 1-30. Conversation analysis distinguishes itself by concentrating on the specific arena of what Emanuel A. Schegloff calls 'talk-in-interaction' (E.A. Schegloff, 'Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2 [June 1987], 101-14), and on sequencing and other means by which utterances with their indexical properties can have local understandability and coherence (John Heritage, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology [Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984], Chapter 8). With regard to conversation analysis and the survey interview per se, see Suchman & Jordan, op. cit. note 85; on the latter article, Schegloff remarks: Although an interview cannot in any case be like a thermometer ... reliable exploitation even of a thermometer requires knowing the properties of mercury, the glass in which it is encased, and so on, and incorporating these properties in the extraction of the desired information from the measurement device. It is by no means clear that we have such elementary understanding of the constitutive components of the survey interview ... a more general inquiry into the features of the survey interview as an organized occasion of talk-in-interaction may help us think through in a thoroughly informed way how exactly to understand the methodological, epistemological, and theoretical features and status of the interview as a tool of inquiry. E.A. Schegloff, 'Comment', Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85, No. 409 (March 1990), 248-50, at 249. This observation resonates with Otis Duncan's suggestion that '... a theory of the interactions of society with measurements of society could increase our understanding of social history and of social science a great deal': Duncan, op. cit. note 28, 112-13.
171. We have already discussed the relevance of ethnomethodology, and its 'studies of work', for the investigation of survey practice. Like ethnomethodology, conversation analysis adopts a 'bottom up' approach to the analysis of produced social orders, as these orders reside in the details of lived actions and social interactions. It shares with ethnomethodology a concern with commonsense reasoning, commonsense practices, and finding the locus of order in the situated, concerted, collaboratively-produced courses of actions, rather than, for example, in rules, categorical identities, types of settings, or other abstract and generalized social structures: Steven E. Clayman and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis', in ten Have & Psathas (eds), op. cit. note 102, 1-30. Conversation analysis distinguishes itself by concentrating on the specific arena of what Emanuel A. Schegloff calls 'talk-in-interaction' (E.A. Schegloff, 'Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2 [June 1987], 101-14), and on sequencing and other means by which utterances with their indexical properties can have local understandability and coherence (John Heritage, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology [Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984], Chapter 8). With regard to conversation analysis and the survey interview per se, see Suchman & Jordan, op. cit. note 85; on the latter article, Schegloff remarks: Although an interview cannot in any case be like a thermometer ... reliable exploitation even of a thermometer requires knowing the properties of mercury, the glass in which it is encased, and so on, and incorporating these properties in the extraction of the desired information from the measurement device. It is by no means clear that we have such elementary understanding of the constitutive components of the survey interview ... a more general inquiry into the features of the survey interview as an organized occasion of talk-in-interaction may help us think through in a thoroughly informed way how exactly to understand the methodological, epistemological, and theoretical features and status of the interview as a tool of inquiry. E.A. Schegloff, 'Comment', Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85, No. 409 (March 1990), 248-50, at 249. This observation resonates with Otis Duncan's suggestion that '... a theory of the interactions of society with measurements of society could increase our understanding of social history and of social science a great deal': Duncan, op. cit. note 28, 112-13.
172. We have already discussed the relevance of ethnomethodology, and its 'studies of work', for the investigation of survey practice. Like ethnomethodology, conversation analysis adopts a 'bottom up' approach to the analysis of produced social orders, as these orders reside in the details of lived actions and social interactions. It shares with ethnomethodology a concern with commonsense reasoning, commonsense practices, and finding the locus of order in the situated, concerted, collaboratively-produced courses of actions, rather than, for example, in rules, categorical identities, types of settings, or other abstract and generalized social structures: Steven E. Clayman and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis', in ten Have & Psathas (eds), op. cit. note 102, 1-30. Conversation analysis distinguishes itself by concentrating on the specific arena of what Emanuel A. Schegloff calls 'talk-in-interaction' (E.A. Schegloff, 'Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2 [June 1987], 101-14), and on sequencing and other means by which utterances with their indexical properties can have local understandability and coherence (John Heritage, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology [Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984], Chapter 8). With regard to conversation analysis and the survey interview per se, see Suchman & Jordan, op. cit. note 85; on the latter article, Schegloff remarks: Although an interview cannot in any case be like a thermometer ... reliable exploitation even of a thermometer requires knowing the properties of mercury, the glass in which it is encased, and so on, and incorporating these properties in the extraction of the desired information from the measurement device. It is by no means clear that we have such elementary understanding of the constitutive components of the survey interview ... a more general inquiry into the features of the survey interview as an organized occasion of talk-in-interaction may help us think through in a thoroughly informed way how exactly to understand the methodological, epistemological, and theoretical features and status of the interview as a tool of inquiry. E.A. Schegloff, 'Comment', Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85, No. 409 (March 1990), 248-50, at 249. This observation resonates with Otis Duncan's suggestion that '... a theory of the interactions of society with measurements of society could increase our understanding of social history and of social science a great deal': Duncan, op. cit. note 28, 112-13.
173. We have already discussed the relevance of ethnomethodology, and its 'studies of work', for the investigation of survey practice. Like ethnomethodology, conversation analysis adopts a 'bottom up' approach to the analysis of produced social orders, as these orders reside in the details of lived actions and social interactions. It shares with ethnomethodology a concern with commonsense reasoning, commonsense practices, and finding the locus of order in the situated, concerted, collaboratively-produced courses of actions, rather than, for example, in rules, categorical identities, types of settings, or other abstract and generalized social structures: Steven E. Clayman and Douglas W. Maynard, 'Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis', in ten Have & Psathas (eds), op. cit. note 102, 1-30. Conversation analysis distinguishes itself by concentrating on the specific arena of what Emanuel A. Schegloff calls 'talk-in-interaction' (E.A. Schegloff, 'Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis', Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2 [June 1987], 101-14), and on sequencing and other means by which utterances with their indexical properties can have local understandability and coherence (John Heritage, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology [Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984], Chapter 8). With regard to conversation analysis and the survey interview per se, see Suchman & Jordan, op. cit. note 85; on the latter article, Schegloff remarks: Although an interview cannot in any case be like a thermometer ... reliable exploitation even of a thermometer requires knowing the properties of mercury, the glass in which it is encased, and so on, and incorporating these properties in the extraction of the desired information from the measurement device. It is by no means clear that we have such elementary understanding of the constitutive components of the survey interview ... a more general inquiry into the features of the survey interview as an organized occasion of talk-in-interaction may help us think through in a thoroughly informed way how exactly to understand the methodological, epistemological, and theoretical features and status of the interview as a tool of inquiry. E.A. Schegloff, 'Comment', Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 85, No. 409 (March 1990), 248-50, at 249. This observation resonates with Otis Duncan's suggestion that '... a theory of the interactions of society with measurements of society could increase our understanding of social history and of social science a great deal': Duncan, op. cit. note 28, 112-13.
174. We draw on the 'weak' sense of what Garfinkel and Wieder suggest as the 'unique adequacy requirement', the methodological policy that an analyst be 'vulgarly competent' in the production of the 'reflexively natural accountability' of the phenomena under investigation: Garfinkel & Wieder, op. cit. note 16, 182.
175. Clarke & Fujimura, op. cit. note 20, 14-15.
176. Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985), esp. 74-76. See also, M. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the Transformation of the Animal Body into a Scientific Object: Laboratory Culture and Ritual Practice in the Neurosciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 2 (May 1988), 265-89.
177. Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985), esp. 74-76. See also, M. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the Transformation of the Animal Body into a Scientific Object: Laboratory Culture and Ritual Practice in the Neurosciences', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 2 (May 1988), 265-89.
178. Even where the lab procedure failed, a rat's brains would be retained and prepared for the next experimental step, '... as if they had been prepared sufficiently well for the purposes of the project'; later, if the materials from a rat showed peculiarities, the investigators might then invoke a failure in preparation to account for the peculiarities: Lynch (1985), op. cit. note 111, 75, 76-77.
179. Knorr-Cetina, op. cit. note 96, 38.
180. We draw on discussions by Garfinkel about 'another next first time': see, for example, Garfinkel & Wieder, op. cit. note 16, 203-04, footnote 3.
181. See Bruno Latour, 'Drawing Things Together', in Michael Lynch & Steve Woolgar (eds), Representation in Scientific Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 19-68. See also Laurence D. Smith, Lisa A. Best, D. Alan Stubbs, John Johnston and Andrea Bastiani Archibald, 'Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences: A Latourian Survey of Inscription Practices', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 1 (February 2000), 73-94.
182. See Bruno Latour, 'Drawing Things Together', in Michael Lynch & Steve Woolgar (eds), Representation in Scientific Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 19-68. See also Laurence D. Smith, Lisa A. Best, D. Alan Stubbs, John Johnston and Andrea Bastiani Archibald, 'Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences: A Latourian Survey of Inscription Practices', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 1 (February 2000), 73-94.
183. We draw on a seminar by Harold Garfinkel in the Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 25 April 1990.
184. On 'docile texts' and related issues, see Michael Lynch, Eric Livingston and Harold Garfinkel, 'Temporal Order in Laboratory Work', in Knorr-Cetina & Mulkay (eds), op. cit. note 19, 205-38.
185. Robert M. Groves, Robert B. Cialdini and Mick P. Couper, 'Understanding the Decision to Participate in a Survey', Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Winter 1992), 475-95, at 487.
186. Mick P. Couper and Robert M. Groves, 'The Role of the Interviewer in Survey Participation', Survey Methodology, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1992), 263-77, at 267.
187. Mick P. Couper and Robert M. Groves, 'Introductory Interactions in Telephone Surveys and Nonresponse', in Maynard et al. (eds), op. cit. note 99, forthcoming [quote at p. 7 of manuscript].
188. See Douglas W. Maynard and Nora Cate Schaeffer, 'Keeping the Gate: Declinations of the Request to Participate in a Telephone Survey Interview', Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1997), 34-79. These authors describe the conversational structure of 'bad timing' and 'not interested' declinations of the request to participate in a telephone survey interview. In their data, 'bad timing' declinations were the most frequent.
189. Because this is the 'front end' and not the substantive interview, the ordinary requirement to read the wording from Screens literally is relaxed. Speaking of a computer form that 9-1-1 emergency call takers must use when talking to callers, Jack Whalen remarks: '... the trajectory of the encounter cannot be treated as the straightforward realization of some standardized agenda, technology, or policy; instead, because contributions to interaction are subject to the independent actions of others, the actual course of a call (or any other social encounter) will be a fundamentally interactional achievement': J. Whalen, 'A Technology of Order Production: Computer-Aided Dispatch in Public Safety Communications', in ten Have & Psathas (eds), op. cit. note 102, 187-230, at 196.
190. Maynard & Schaeffer, op. cit. note 121, 47.
191. .hhh who is at least eighteen and currently married (0.1) divorced (0.1) or living with a partner.
192. However, 'yes' answers and 'no' answers are not equivalent in terms of interactional organization: see A.J. Wootton, 'The Management of Grantings and Rejections by Parents in Request Sequences', Semiotica, Vol. 37, Nos 1/2 (1981), 59-89.
193. We are basing this assertion on the inspection of other materials in which participants invoke the notion of 'chance' when making requests or describing how they or others have obtained a courtesy. See also the discussion of 'sales appeals' by Gail Jefferson and Jim Schenkein, in their 'Some Sequential Negotiations in Conversation: Unexpanded and Expanded Versions of Projected Action Sequences', in Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction (New York: Academic Press, 1978), 155-72, at 169, footnote 3.
194. Bob attempted to recruit the husband for the interview, but he was 'getting ready to go to work'. After that, Bob asked when the wife would be returning, and the husband said that it would be in about 20 minutes. This would be after the end of the shift in the CSR, and because this was the last night for the study, Bob said to the husband that they 'probably won't be calling back', and the two parties hung up.
195. 128. The previous interviewer was female, so the 'you' here appears to refer to 'Indiana University', and to be employed in a categorical rather than personal sense.
196. The utterance can be implying a failure: that the CSR did not heed her 'not interested' response to the previous solicitation, which they could have done by ceasing to recruit her. On the noticing of failures as a method for complaining, see Emanuel A. Schegloff, 'Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation', in Paul Drew and Anthony Wootton (eds), Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1988), 89-135, at 120. Also see Sally Jacoby and Patrick Gonzales, 'Saying What Wasn't Said: Negative Observation as a Linguistic Resource for the Interactional Achievement of Performance Feedback', in Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), The Language of Turn and Sequence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press).
197. The utterance can be implying a failure: that the CSR did not heed her 'not interested' response to the previous solicitation, which they could have done by ceasing to recruit her. On the noticing of failures as a method for complaining, see Emanuel A. Schegloff, 'Goffman and the Analysis of Conversation', in Paul Drew and Anthony Wootton (eds), Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1988), 89-135, at 120. Also see Sally Jacoby and Patrick Gonzales, 'Saying What Wasn't Said: Negative Observation as a Linguistic Resource for the Interactional Achievement of Performance Feedback', in Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), The Language of Turn and Sequence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press).
198. Harvey Sacks, Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 1: Fall 1964-Spring 1968 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 637-38. See also Schegloff, op. cit. note 129, 122.
199. Harvey Sacks, Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 1: Fall 1964-Spring 1968 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 637-38. See also Schegloff, op. cit. note 129, 122.
200. That is, it does not propose to apologize for the call-back, or to explain it in so many words, or otherwise to invoke a more elaborate remedy for the offence: see Erving Goffman, Relations in Public (New York: Harper Colophon, 1971), 118-22.
201. Observe also that MR's utterance at line 13 exhibits features of a 'dispreferred' (rejecting) response: the first part (Tm an adult') agrees with part of the previous turn; that is followed by a brief pause, a contrast marker ('but'), and an account for a rejection rather than a rejection per se: see Anita Pomerantz, 'Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes', in J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 57-101.
202. Maynard & Schaeffer, op. cit. note 121.
203. Douglas W. Maynard and Nora Cate Schaeffer, 'Closing the Gate: Routes to Call Termination When Recipients Decline a Telephone Survey Interview', in Maynard et al. (eds), op. cit. note 99, forthcoming. See also Emanuel A. Schegloff and Harvey Sacks, 'Opening Up Closings', Semiotica, Vol. 8, No. 4 (1973), 289-327.
204. Douglas W. Maynard and Nora Cate Schaeffer, 'Closing the Gate: Routes to Call Termination When Recipients Decline a Telephone Survey Interview', in Maynard et al. (eds), op. cit. note 99, forthcoming. See also Emanuel A. Schegloff and Harvey Sacks, 'Opening Up Closings', Semiotica, Vol. 8, No. 4 (1973), 289-327.
205. For discussion of 'batonic' gesturing, see Adam Kendon, 'Do Gestures Communicate?', Research on Language and Social Interaction, Vol. 27, No. 3 (1994), 175-200. For discussion of experimental evidence on how 'unseen' gesturing relates to a speaker's expressiveness, see Bernard Rimé and Loris Schiaratura, 'Gesture and Speech', in Paul Ekman and Klaus R. Scherer (eds), Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 239-81. For a recent collection of studies that examine the relations among interaction, bodily comportment, and computer usage in work settings, see Yrjo Engström and David Middleton, Cognition and Communication at Work (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
206. For discussion of 'batonic' gesturing, see Adam Kendon, 'Do Gestures Communicate?', Research on Language and Social Interaction, Vol. 27, No. 3 (1994), 175-200. For discussion of experimental evidence on how 'unseen' gesturing relates to a speaker's expressiveness, see Bernard Rimé and Loris Schiaratura, 'Gesture and Speech', in Paul Ekman and Klaus R. Scherer (eds), Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 239-81. For a recent collection of studies that examine the relations among interaction, bodily comportment, and computer usage in work settings, see Yrjo Engström and David Middleton, Cognition and Communication at Work (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
207. For discussion of 'batonic' gesturing, see Adam Kendon, 'Do Gestures Communicate?', Research on Language and Social Interaction, Vol. 27, No. 3 (1994), 175-200. For discussion of experimental evidence on how 'unseen' gesturing relates to a speaker's expressiveness, see Bernard Rimé and Loris Schiaratura, 'Gesture and Speech', in Paul Ekman and Klaus R. Scherer (eds), Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 239-81. For a recent collection of studies that examine the relations among interaction, bodily comportment, and computer usage in work settings, see Yrjo Engström and David Middleton, Cognition and Communication at Work (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
208. For extended discussion of how rhetoric is designed for performance in scientific presentation, see Elinor Ochs and Sally Jacoby, 'Down to the Wire: The Cultural Clock of Physicists and the Discourse of Consensus', Language in Society, Vol. 26, No. 4 (December 1997), 479-505.
209. As we said earlier, Bob did call the household back an hour later, and the wife answered. When she checked with her husband about participating, he refused once again, which illustrates a point Maynard and Schaeffer (op. cit. note 134, forthcoming [p. 22 in manuscript]) make about the spuriousness of some call-back arrangements, which are outcomes of interactional structures rather than substantive agreements. However, in this case, the wife then agreed to participate and did complete the interview.
210. See Andrew Barry, 'The History of Measurement and the Engineers of Space', British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 26, Part 4, No. 87 (December 1993), 459-68, who discusses how a sociology of measurement and calculation intersects with the history and sociology of science, sociology of knowledge and social theory. A wide variety of measurements, including those concerned with weight, distance, energy, current, radioactivity, toxicity, and so on, are developed for establishing government standards. Further, there are measurements that are more directly employed as social and economic indicators, including those for savings, poverty, investments, productivity, and also population demography and health. All of these measurements depend more upon what Barry refers to as 'problematic' techniques, which we understand to include the tacit work that makes large-scale measurement possible on a nevertheless case-by-case basis.
211. Charles F. Cannell and Morris Axelrod, 'The Respondent Reports on the Interview', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 62, No. 2 (September 1956), 177-81, at 177.
212. Johannes van der Zouwen, Wil Dijkstra and Johannes H. Smit, 'Studying Respondent-Interviewer Interaction: The Relationship Between Interviewing Style, Interviewer Behavior, and Response Behavior', in Biemer et al. (eds), op. cit. note 30, 419-37.
213. Kurt Danziger, Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
214. Theodore M. Porter, 'MakingThings Quantitative', in Michael Power (ed.), Accounting and Science: Natural Inquiry and Commercial Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 36-56.
215. William Alonso and Paul Star (eds), The Politics of Numbers (New York: Russell Sage, 1987).
216. Garfinkel, op. cit. note 93, 10.
217. This is meant neither as an ironic nor as a pejorative comment on SR, but to further distinguish its mode of investigation from ethnomethodology's (and vice versa). For a study of ethnomethodology that is something like what survey investigation of the field might do, consider Nicholas Mullins, Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), Chapter 8. Mullins applies a four-stage model of speciality growth in science to various sociological fields, including ethnomethodology. The description of ethnomethodology in terms of these stages, and of the networks and intellectual influences expressed in each stage, plus predictions about the field's capacity for survival, make for informative reading in an historical sense, independent of the validity of Mullins' model. Neither when it was published nor now, however, does the study contribute to the science of ethnomethodology itself. Nor was it meant to. For an update, see Nicholas C. Mullins, 'Theories and Theory Groups Revisited', in Randall Collins (ed.), Sociological Theory (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1983), 319-37.
218. This is meant neither as an ironic nor as a pejorative comment on SR, but to further distinguish its mode of investigation from ethnomethodology's (and vice versa). For a study of ethnomethodology that is something like what survey investigation of the field might do, consider Nicholas Mullins, Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), Chapter 8. Mullins applies a four-stage model of speciality growth in science to various sociological fields, including ethnomethodology. The description of ethnomethodology in terms of these stages, and of the networks and intellectual influences expressed in each stage, plus predictions about the field's capacity for survival, make for informative reading in an historical sense, independent of the validity of Mullins' model. Neither when it was published nor now, however, does the study contribute to the science of ethnomethodology itself. Nor was it meant to. For an update, see Nicholas C. Mullins, 'Theories and Theory Groups Revisited', in Randall Collins (ed.), Sociological Theory (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1983), 319-37.
219. Labinger, op. cit. note 17, 287-88.
220. Donald N. Levine, Visions of the Sociological Tradition (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1995), 325-26.
221. Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979), 318. For discussion of a similar point, see Thomas F. Gieryn, 'Objectivity for These Times', Perspectives on Science, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Fall 1994), 324-49.
222. Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979), 318. For discussion of a similar point, see Thomas F. Gieryn, 'Objectivity for These Times', Perspectives on Science, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Fall 1994), 324-49.
223. For a thorough review of the 'science wars', see Tom Gieryn's 'Epilogue' to his Cultural Boundaries of Science, op. cit. note 27, 336-62. A recent centre of the science wars was the defence of science by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt in their Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), but Gieryn suggests that the start of the war may have been Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), along with the exchange between Wolpert and Harry Collins in the Times Higher Education Supplement (16 September 1994). Gieryn sees the science wars as 'credibility contests in which rival parties manipulate the boundaries of science in order to legitimate their beliefs about reality and secure for their knowledge making a provisional epistemic authority that carries with it influence, prestige, and material resources' (op. cit., 336-37). As Gieryn maps the controversy (ibid., 340), it is between 'science defenders', or 'those who see science as under attack', and 'science studies', or 'those who examine science as a historical, sociological, and cultural phenomenon'.
224. For a thorough review of the 'science wars', see Tom Gieryn's 'Epilogue' to his Cultural Boundaries of Science, op. cit. note 27, 336-62. A recent centre of the science wars was the defence of science by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt in their Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), but Gieryn suggests that the start of the war may have been Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), along with the exchange between Wolpert and Harry Collins in the Times Higher Education Supplement (16 September 1994). Gieryn sees the science wars as 'credibility contests in which rival parties manipulate the boundaries of science in order to legitimate their beliefs about reality and secure for their knowledge making a provisional epistemic authority that carries with it influence, prestige, and material resources' (op. cit., 336-37). As Gieryn maps the controversy (ibid., 340), it is between 'science defenders', or 'those who see science as under attack', and 'science studies', or 'those who examine science as a historical, sociological, and cultural phenomenon'.
225. For a thorough review of the 'science wars', see Tom Gieryn's 'Epilogue' to his Cultural Boundaries of Science, op. cit. note 27, 336-62. A recent centre of the science wars was the defence of science by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt in their Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), but Gieryn suggests that the start of the war may have been Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), along with the exchange between Wolpert and Harry Collins in the Times Higher Education Supplement (16 September 1994). Gieryn sees the science wars as 'credibility contests in which rival parties manipulate the boundaries of science in order to legitimate their beliefs about reality and secure for their knowledge making a provisional epistemic authority that carries with it influence, prestige, and material resources' (op. cit., 336-37). As Gieryn maps the controversy (ibid., 340), it is between 'science defenders', or 'those who see science as under attack', and 'science studies', or 'those who examine science as a historical, sociological, and cultural phenomenon'.
226. For a thorough review of the 'science wars', see Tom Gieryn's 'Epilogue' to his Cultural Boundaries of Science, op. cit. note 27, 336-62. A recent centre of the science wars was the defence of science by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt in their Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), but Gieryn suggests that the start of the war may have been Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), along with the exchange between Wolpert and Harry Collins in the Times Higher Education Supplement (16 September 1994). Gieryn sees the science wars as 'credibility contests in which rival parties manipulate the boundaries of science in order to legitimate their beliefs about reality and secure for their knowledge making a provisional epistemic authority that carries with it influence, prestige, and material resources' (op. cit., 336-37). As Gieryn maps the controversy (ibid., 340), it is between 'science defenders', or 'those who see science as under attack', and 'science studies', or 'those who examine science as a historical, sociological, and cultural phenomenon'.
227. For a thorough review of the 'science wars', see Tom Gieryn's 'Epilogue' to his Cultural Boundaries of Science, op. cit. note 27, 336-62. A recent centre of the science wars was the defence of science by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt in their Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), but Gieryn suggests that the start of the war may have been Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), along with the exchange between Wolpert and Harry Collins in the Times Higher Education Supplement (16 September 1994). Gieryn sees the science wars as 'credibility contests in which rival parties manipulate the boundaries of science in order to legitimate their beliefs about reality and secure for their knowledge making a provisional epistemic authority that carries with it influence, prestige, and material resources' (op. cit., 336-37). As Gieryn maps the controversy (ibid., 340), it is between 'science defenders', or 'those who see science as under attack', and 'science studies', or 'those who examine science as a historical, sociological, and cultural phenomenon'.
228. For a thorough review of the 'science wars', see Tom Gieryn's 'Epilogue' to his Cultural Boundaries of Science, op. cit. note 27, 336-62. A recent centre of the science wars was the defence of science by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt in their Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), but Gieryn suggests that the start of the war may have been Lewis Wolpert's The Unnatural Nature of Science (London: Faber & Faber, 1992), along with the exchange between Wolpert and Harry Collins in the Times Higher Education Supplement (16 September 1994). Gieryn sees the science wars as 'credibility contests in which rival parties manipulate the boundaries of science in order to legitimate their beliefs about reality and secure for their knowledge making a provisional epistemic authority that carries with it influence, prestige, and material resources' (op. cit., 336-37). As Gieryn maps the controversy (ibid., 340), it is between 'science defenders', or 'those who see science as under attack', and 'science studies', or 'those who examine science as a historical, sociological, and cultural phenomenon'.
229. Michael Lynch suggests that the kind of collaboration between SSKers and scientists that Labinger invites already exists in the area of technology studies, especially at Xerox PARC in Palo Alto, CA and EuroPARC in Cambridge, UK: see M. Lynch, 'Collaboration and Scandal: A Comment on Labinger', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 25, No. 2 (May 1995), 324-29. For a discussion of the advantages that the science wars present for both science and social studies of science, see Gieryn (1998, op. cit. note 27, 359-61), who argues that there are mutual benefits to be gleaned from better understanding of the cultural and social underpinnings of science.
230. Michael Lynch suggests that the kind of collaboration between SSKers and scientists that Labinger invites already exists in the area of technology studies, especially at Xerox PARC in Palo Alto, CA and EuroPARC in Cambridge, UK: see M. Lynch, 'Collaboration and Scandal: A Comment on Labinger', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 25, No. 2 (May 1995), 324-29. For a discussion of the advantages that the science wars present for both science and social studies of science, see Gieryn (1998, op. cit. note 27, 359-61), who argues that there are mutual benefits to be gleaned from better understanding of the cultural and social underpinnings of science.