Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:20:30.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 4 - Ethnomethodology and Routine Dynamics

from Part I - Theoretical Resources for Routine Dynamics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2021

By
Juan López-Cotarelo
Edited by
Martha S. Feldman ,
Brian T. Pentland ,
Luciana D'Adderio ,
Katharina Dittrich ,
Claus Rerup  and
David Seidl
Martha S. Feldman
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Brian T. Pentland
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Luciana D'Adderio
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Katharina Dittrich
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
Claus Rerup
Affiliation:
Frankfurt School of Finance and Management
David Seidl
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
Get access

Summary

Ethnomethodology (EM) has been fundamental to Routine Dynamics theorizing since its inception. However, whereas EM is well known for its detailed studies of face-to-face interactions, its relevance to understanding phenomena such as routines that span multiple spaces and times is less widely recognized. EM studies of routine dynamics take a primary interest in the taken-for-granted yet systematic ways in which members produce actions that are accountably “the same” across sites and occasions. Through sequenced embodied displays of orientation to material elements of the setting and the unfolding interaction, members construct in situ an interaction that is meaningful to them. To the extent that some such elements are available and oriented-to by actors across multiple sites and occasions, a pattern of repetitive action becomes observable. EM thus provides the theoretical underpinning for an understanding of routines as situated actions, and paves the way for a program of routine dynamics research grounded in the empirically observable material and embodied processes of interaction that constitute repetitive action patterns.

Keywords

Routinesroutine dynamicsethnomethodologysituated actionmaterialityembodiment
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 49 - 61
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amerine, R. and Bilmes, J. (1988). Following instructions. Human Studies, 327–339.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. J. and Sharrock, W. (2018). Action at a Distance: Studies in the Practicalities of Executive Management. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, K. and Hindmarsh, J. (2019). Embodied spatial practices and everyday organization: The work of tour guides and their audiences. Human Relations, 72(2), 248–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, E. (1965). The concept of organization. Social Research, 32(3), 239–255.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher, S. and Langley, A. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594–613.Google Scholar
Cooren, F. (2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11(3), 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittrich, K., Guérard, S. and Seidl, D. (2016). Talking about routines: The role of reflective talk in routine change. Organization Science, 27(3), 678–697.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2003). A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 727–752.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present, and future. In Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Tsoukas, H. and Langley, A., eds., Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on Routine Dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505–513.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution Of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, V. L. (2017). Design performances: How organizations inscribe artifacts to change routines. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2126–2154.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000a). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000b). Practices of color classification. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000c). Vision and Inscription in Practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 1–3.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2011). Contextures of action. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. D., eds., Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, C. and Luff, P. (2013). Embodied action and organisational interaction: Establishing contract on the strike of a hammer. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge; New York: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J. and Heath, C. (2000). Sharing the tools of the trade: The interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(5), 523–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P. and Dunne, S. (2011). Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprenticeship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 489–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kameo, N. and Whalen, J. (2015). Organizing documents: Standard forms, person production and organizational action. Qualitative Sociology, 38(2), 205–229.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. (2011). Understanding understanding in action. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 435–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C. and Feltovich, P. (2011). ‘Can you see the cystic artery yet?’ A simple matter of trust. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 521–541.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1986). The powers of association. In Law, J., ed., Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBaron, C., Christianson, M. K., Garrett, L. and Ilan, R. (2016). Coordinating flexible performance during everyday work: An ethnomethodological study of handoff routines. Organization Science, 27(3), 514–534.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (2011). Commentary: On understanding understanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 553–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (2015). Garfinkel’s Studies of Work. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.ehess.fr/sg12/WebPro1516/Draft%20-%20Garf%20book.pdf.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (2019). Garfinkel, Sacks and formal structures: Collaborative origins, divergences and the history of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Human Studies, 42(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011a). The interactional production of multiple spatialities within a participatory democracy meeting. Social Semiotics, 21(2), 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011b). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014a). Cooking instructions and the shaping of things in the kitchen. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. and Rauniomaa, M., eds., Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity: Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014b). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.Google Scholar
Moore, R. J., Whalen, J. and Gathman, E. C. H. (2010). The work of the work order: Document practice in face-to-face service encounters. In Llewellyn, N. and Hindmarsh, J., eds., Organisation, Interaction and Practice: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Designing routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Information & Organization, 18(4), 235–250.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C. and Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484–1508.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484–510.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (2002). Editor’s introduction. In Garfinkel, H.. Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 1–64.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (2006). Respecifying the study of social order: Garfinkel’s transition from theoretical conceptualization to practices in details. In Garfinkel, H., ed., Seeing Sociologically: The Routine Grounds of Social Action. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, pp. 1–97. Rawls, A. W. (2008). Harold Garfinkel, ethnomethodology and workplace studies. Organization Studies, 29(5), 701–732.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (2011). Harold Garfinkel. In Ritzer, G. and Stepnisky, J., eds., The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists. Vol. 2 Contemporary Social Theorists. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 89–124.Google Scholar
Rerup, C. and Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 577–610.Google Scholar
Smith, D. E. (2001). Texts and the ontology of organizations and institutions. Studies in Cultures, Organizations & Societies, 7(2), 159–198.Google Scholar
Smith, D. E. (2005). Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Smith, D. E. and Whalen, J. (1997). Texts in Action. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. D. (2011). Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. D., eds., Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (1996). Constituting shared workspaces. In Engeström, Y. and Middleton, D., eds., Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (1997). Centers of coordination: A case and some themes. In Resnick, L. B., Säljö, R., Pontecorvo, C. and Burge, B., eds., Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition. Berlin; New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tulbert, E. and Goodwin, M. H. (2011). Choreographies of attention: Multimodality in a routine family activity. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. D., eds., Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–92.Google Scholar
Ueno, N. (2000). Ecologies of inscription: Technologies of making the social organization of work and the mass production of machine parts visible in collaborative activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 59–80.Google Scholar
Whalen, J., Whalen, M. and Henderson, K. (2002). Improvisational choreography in teleservice work. The British Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 239–258.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2010). Philosophical Investigations. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Yamauchi, Y. and Hiramoto, T. (2016). Reflexivity of routines: An ethnomethodological investigation of initial service encounters at sushi bars in Tokyo. Organization Studies, 37(10), 1473–1499.Google Scholar
Yamauchi, Y. and Hiramoto, T. (2021). Performative achievement of routine recognizability: An analysis of order taking routines at sushi bars. Journal of Management Studies, 57(8), 1610–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, D. H. (1970). The practicalities of rule use. In Douglas, J. D., ed., Understanding Everyday Life: Toward the Reconstruction of Sociological Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 221–238.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×