Ethnomethodology vs. Symbolic Interactionism

Attribute	Ethnomethodology	Symbolic Interactionism
Founder	Harold Garfinkel	George Herbert Mead
Focus	Study of how people make sense of their social world	Study of how individuals create and interpret symbols in their interactions
Methods	Conversation analysis, breaching experiments	Observation, interviews, participant observation
Key Concepts	Indexicality, reflexivity, ethnomethods	Symbols, self, socialization, role-taking
Approach	Microsociological	Microsociological

Introduction

Ethnomethodology and Symbolic Interactionism are two sociological perspectives that focus on the study of human behavior and social interactions. While both approaches share some similarities, they also have distinct differences in terms of their theoretical foundations and research methods.

Definition of Ethnomethodology

Ethnomethodology is a sociological perspective that focuses on the study of how people make sense of their everyday social interactions. Developed by Harold Garfinkel in the 1960s, ethnomethodology emphasizes the importance of understanding the methods and practices that people use to create and maintain social order. Ethnomethodologists are interested in uncovering the implicit rules and norms that govern social interactions, as well as how individuals navigate these rules in their daily lives.

Definition of Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic Interactionism is a sociological perspective that focuses on the study of how individuals create and interpret symbols in their interactions with others. Developed by George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley in the early 20th century, symbolic interactionism emphasizes the role of symbols, meanings, and interpretations in shaping social behavior. Symbolic interactionists are interested in how individuals use symbols to communicate, negotiate identities, and construct social reality.

Key Similarities

• Both ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism focus on the study of human behavior and social interactions.
• Both perspectives emphasize the importance of understanding the subjective meanings and interpretations that individuals attach to their social interactions.
• Both approaches reject the idea of a fixed social reality and instead emphasize the dynamic and fluid nature of social life.

Key Differences

• Ethnomethodology focuses on the study of the methods and practices that people use to create and maintain social order, while symbolic interactionism focuses on the study of symbols and meanings in social interactions.
• Ethnomethodology is more concerned with uncovering the implicit rules and norms that govern social interactions, while symbolic interactionism is more concerned with how individuals create and interpret symbols in their interactions with others.
• Ethnomethodology tends to be more focused on micro-level interactions, while symbolic interactionism can be applied to both micro and macro-level social phenomena.

Research Methods

Ethnomethodologists typically use qualitative research methods such as participant observation, interviews, and discourse analysis to study social interactions in naturalistic settings. They are interested in uncovering the taken-for-granted practices and assumptions that underlie everyday social life. Symbolic interactionists also use qualitative research methods, but they may also incorporate quantitative methods such as surveys and experiments to study symbols and meanings in social interactions.

Applications

Ethnomethodology has been applied to a wide range of research areas, including the study of conversation analysis, ethnomethodological studies of work, and the analysis of social order in everyday life. Symbolic interactionism has been applied to the study of identity formation, socialization processes, and the construction of social reality. Both perspectives have been influential in shaping sociological research and theory in the fields of sociology, anthropology, and communication studies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism are two sociological perspectives that offer valuable insights into the study of human behavior and social interactions. While both approaches share some similarities, they also have distinct differences in terms of their theoretical foundations, research methods, and applications. By understanding the key attributes of ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics of social life.