‘Reflexivity or Sociological Practice: A Reply to May’

Roger Slack

Sociological Research Online, 2000, vol. 5, issue 1, 27-31

Abstract: The paper constitutes a response to May's concept of reflexivity, and argues that debates on reflexivity have missed the need to ground their claims in the life world of society members - thus promoting the very ironic stance they seek to address. A re-articulation of claims to reflexivity is made in the distinction between ‘essential’ and ‘stipulative’ reflexivities wherein the former is grounded in members’ observable-reportable natural language practical actions, while the latter remains the province of the analyst and subjects members’ versions to sociological remedy. The paper suggests a return to the work of Garfinkel (1967) as a means of respecifying the grounds of the reflexivity debate.

Keywords: Ethnomethodology; Reflexivity; Sociological Description; Sociological Research (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2000
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.416 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:socres:v:5:y:2000:i:1:p:27-31

DOI: 10.5153/sro.416

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Sociological Research Online
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().