Ethnomethodology and Routine Dynamics

doi:10.1017/9781108993340.006

Chapter 4 - Ethnomethodology and Routine Dynamics

from Part I - Theoretical Resources for Routine Dynamics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2021

Edited by

Claus Rerup and

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

Book contents

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

Routines routine dynamics ethnomethodology situated action materiality embodiment

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 49 - 61

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993340.006 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P. and Dunne, S. (2011). Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprenticeship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 489–503.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2011a). The interactional production of multiple spatialities within a participatory democracy meeting. Social Semiotics, 21(2), 289–316.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2011b). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542–552.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.