Studies in ETHNOMETHODOLOGY HAROLD GARFINKEL University of Calter, Los Angeles Prennice-Hatt, Ine, Englewood Cis, New Jersey(© 1061 by Pamsmice-Has, Isc, Englewood Cis, New Jay A right reserve, No pat ofthis Book thay be reprodaced ts any form or by any mes ‘Tahout permission in wring Fram the publisher Library of Congress Ctalog Gord Nos 6723565 Curent printing (last dis): wos7e5432t Pownce Haut temas, I, London Prove Haus or Aormusin BY Lr, Spey PemvriacHats ov Canaoa, bm, Tonio Pussrice Hate Istan Beane Lo, New Delhi PuovriceHats ov Jarax, Ine, Tokyo ‘To ABRAHAM GARFINKELPreface In doing sociology, lay and professional, every reference tothe eal world” even where the reference is to physical or biologic rents isa reference to the organized activities of everyday Be ‘Thereby in contrast to certain versions of Durkheim tat teach that the objective reality of social facts is sociology’s fundamental prt tdple, the Ison is taken instead, and used as a stody poli, that fhe objective tality of social facts ar an ongoing accomplishment fof the concerted activites of daily Mie, with the ordinary, atl ‘Gay of that accomplishment being by members known, wsed, and Eiken for granted, is, for members doing sociology, a fundamental ‘Phouomnenom, Because, and in the ways ts practical sociology’ Fundamental phenomenon, # & the prevaling topie for ethno fmothodologicl study, Ethoorethodological studies analyze every {Tay activites as member imethods For making those same activities Sfablyretionsband-reportableforallpractical-purposes, te “ac countable” as organizations of commonplace everyday activities ‘The redeivity of that phenomenon i singular Featore of practical titions, of prctcal creumrtances, of common sense knowledge of Sota structures, and of practical sociological reasoning, By permit {ing unto locate and cxamine their oocurtence the reflexivity of that ‘Phenomenon establishes ther stay. “Their Mudy is directed to the taks of learning how members) “i STUDIES WN ETHNOMETHODOLOGY actual, ordinary activities consist of method’}to make practical ons, practial circumstances, common sense knowledge of ci ructres, end practicl soiologieal reasoning analyzeable; and of ‘Buowering the formal properties of commonplace, practical com- {rom see actions, "from within” actual settings, a8 ongoing socom ‘lshments of those settings, The formal properties obtain thelr guar- Entees from no other soure, and in no other way. Because this tor oar study tasks cannot be accomplished by free invention, con TRhucive analytic theorizing rocks, oe book reviews, and 20 00 Sposa teres s paid fo them aside from an interest in their varic- Tes as organizational stated methods of practical reasoning. Simi Teny, there ‘cn be nothing to quarrel with or to corect about prac: ‘ea soctslgical easing, snd 20, because professional sociological fnguiie ate practical through and through, except tht quarrels between those doing profesional inguires and ethnomethodology nay be of interest as phenomena for ethnomethodological studies, these quartele need not be taken serious. ‘Ethuomethodological studies are not directed to formulating or arguing comectives. They ate useless when they are done a ions, [Although they are directed to the preparation of manuals on socio; Topieal methods, these are in 0 way supplements to “standard” cedure, but are distinct from ther They do not formulate Fermoy for practical actions, as ft was being found about practical etlons that they were better oe worse than they are usally eracked tp to be. Nor are they in search of humanistic arguments, nor do they engage in or encourage permisive discussions of theory. “oer the past ten years & grovp of increasing size as been doing ‘thnomethodologea! studies as day to day concerns: Fgon Bitter ‘Faron V. Cicourel, Lindsey Chuteil, Craig MacAndrew, Michael ‘Mocenan, Edward Rose, Harvey Sacks, Emmanuel Schegl, David Sudow, D. Lawrence Wieder, and Don Zimmerman, Harvey Sacks Imust be mentioned particularly because his extraordinary writings tnd lectures have served as critical resources, “Through their studies methods have been made avalable whose ‘use has established domain of sociological phenomena: the formal ‘ropertes of common sense activites a a practical organizational Ercomplishinent An early body of work of considerable size is now tither in print ori pres This volume ss part ofthat early corpus UNNI ere eee nnrP Pre rer eregereregerr yr manner i ‘A ater, very larg set of material s currently circulating prior to A blistion. Findings and methods are becoming availble at ann Petising rte, and stk pointless any longer to doubt that an ak cree therto unknown domain of social phenomena has been Uncovered, “The studies in this volume wore written over the lst twelve yea Tvqret a certain unity inthe collection that was obtained by Yerlering and rscranging texts. am saddened by tht practice Pome the way i asures tothe collected articles an overall “good Teese wil certainly have sacriiced news. The aces originated Tene Ty modes of the writings of Talat Parsons, Alfred Schutz, ftom artch, end Fdimund Huser. For twenty years thir writ Be Nive provided me with inexhaustible directives into the world a ley activities, Parsons work, particulary, remains awesome or the penetrating depth and unfailing precision of it practical ‘etologlal reaoning. on the constituent tasks of the problem of foetal order and ts stations “th completion of these studs was made materially possible by te following grants and fellowships. Studies reported in the Proerson routine grounds the documentary method, and passing Papert apported bya Senior esearch Fellowship, SF}, from the Us Puble Health Service, Investigations of common understand ths and cading practices were supported by Senior Research Fel Ieship SF. from the U.S Public Health Service, Grant Q-2 fom Mee Research Section ofthe California State Department of Mental Higiens, and Project ALAFOSR-T57-85 of the Behavioral Scenees Ditsion ofthe Air Farce Ofce of Scientie Research. "The work upon which the paper on the rationals is based wat initiated while the author wat a member of the Organizational Be- bavior Project, Princeton University, and was completed under ¢ Senior Recearch Fellowship, SF-S1, from the US. Public Health Semice. The author is indebted to the Tnterisciplinary Program s0 She Dehaviorl Selences atthe University of New Mexico, Summer 168, under project AF 49(638)-99 ofthe Behavioral Sciences Divi- tion Ait Fore Offceof Scientific Research, ARDC, and the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology "Tras plage to speod the academic year 1969-1064 as a Fel low in the Center forthe Scientie Stody of Suicide of the Losx STUDIES NY ETHNONETHODOLOGY ‘Angeles Suicide Prevention Center, Iam indebted to Drs. Edwin 8 ‘Shneidman, Norman I, Farberow, and Robert E. Litman for theit hospitality ‘The investigations of the work of the Psychiatric Outpatient Cline of the UCLA, Newropayehiatic Institute were supported bby Grants Ac and Q-2 from the Research Section ofthe Calforia State Department of Mental Hygiene, and Senior Research Fellow ship SFI from the US. Pubic Health Service. “The investigntion of staff uses of clinic flders was supported by Grant Q-2 fom the Research Setion ofthe California State Depart- ‘ment of Menta Hygiene, the senioe author's Senior Research Fellow thip SE-1 from the US. Public Health Service, and the Confer fences on Ethnomethodology under Grant AF-AFOSH278-62 of the Behavioral Sciences Division of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Hamry RBrickman, M.D,, snd Eugene Pummpiao-Mindlin, MLD, former Directors of the Psychiatric Outpatient Clinic of the Newroprychiatic Insite at the University of California, Los Angeles, greatly facilitated the inquires. Drs. Leon Epstein and Robert Ros, encouraged the clini studies and administered Grants [Aq and Q2 from the Cakforia Department of Mental Hygiene ‘when they directed its Research Section Particular gratitude i extended to Dr, Charles E. Hutchinson, (Chief of the Behavioral Sciences Division, Air Force Ofce of Se ‘nlc Research, whose Division supported the Conferences on Ethnomethodology with Grant AF-AFOSR-278.62 to Edward Rose and me, and Studies of Decision Making in Common Sense Situs tions of Choice with Grants AF-AFOSR-757-65, and AF-AFOSR. 157-06 to Harvey Sacks, Lindsey Chorehill and me. ‘The study of methodological adequacy benefited in many in- portant says from the eritcsms of Des Richard J. Hill Eliot. Mister, Eleanor B, Sheldon, and Stanton Wheeler: Thanks are due to Egon Bittner, when he was my research assistant, for coding the cases, and to Michael K. Mend for the ealealations, The paper re ‘quired the advice of Professor Charles F. Mosteller, Department of Statistics, Harvard University, and the inventiveness of Profesor ‘Wilfted j. Dison, School of Public Health, University of California, Loe Angeles, Profesor Dizon devised the method for using chi square fo evaluate data involving conditional probabilities. With a bis prison he mea ie eported in Api 1 aly Lam r= Jpunbl forte papers serconings ‘Lam grateful a ‘students Michael R. Mend and Patricia Allen for the asttance with te ce and tlabity sues, Peter Meflogh, when he was agate stdent st UCLA, ated me ehh “counting ene. Ded Saw waked othe Tits hr pate to improve he wting Rober J Sti Fen Biter anSet Mendnt clare in he sien that oe {han ts contr The say of soe bata on interviews wh fine by Meneame whe we mere st i te Jay Pret ofthe Law School ofthe Unveray of Cha. Stare ove t very prs pcre ne Ch fet nd corn Yo ot rene: Wan C. Beth, Je Eman, ee and Ruth Elec, Ens! Ginn Even Foster, Duncan MacRae Je. Sut Menlo het @ Mie Harv. Herken Jr, Willan & Raion ard Rose, Evin 5 Serna, Mel Seeman and Elanor Scion My vl wf ens ths tok with ne Haszoxo Garena,FESFRPESSSSER ESA SF ASM SESE Se aee tate Acknowledgments (Chapters One (in part), Two, Throe, and Fight were previ- cously published. Chapter One incindes material from “Practical Sociological Reasoning: Some Features in the Work of the Los ‘Angelos Suicide Prevention Center,” in Essays in Self Destruction, ‘edited by Edwin §. Shneidman, Interational Science Press, 1967, {in press. Chapter Two ie reprinted with revisions from Socal Prob- Teme, Winter, 1964, Vol 11, No 3, pp. 25-250. Chapter Three is r= ‘printed with permission ofthe Macmillan Company from Theories (ofthe Mind, edited by Jordan M. Scher, the Free Press of Glencoe, The, New York, 1962, pp. 689712, Chapter Eight originally ap [peared in Behosoral Science, Vol. 5, No.1, January, 1960, pp. 72. 85. Italo appeared in Decisions, Values, and Groups, Vol. 2 edited by Norman F. Washbume, Pergamon Pres, Ine, New York, 1962 ‘pp. 904324. ram indebted to these sources for their pennission to eprint. I wish ako to thank the RAND Corporation for permission to'repriat the detailed excerpt from the monograph by Olaf Helmer snd Nicholas Rescher, On the Eptemology ofthe Inexat Sciences, P.ASIS Santa Monica, Calfomia: RAND Corporation, October 13 1858, pp. 8:14 ‘Chapter Seven, “Methodological Adequacy in the Quantitative Study of Selection Criteria. and Selection Practices in Psychiatric ‘Outpatient lines,” was drafted in Marc, 1960. No updating ofthe Piaw stubs NV enNoMEMHODOLOGY list of studies was done after the orginal lst was assembled in Mareh, 1960 and so several studies are conspicuously absent, es, Elliot Mishler and Nancy E, Waxler's sted, "Decision Process i Peychiatric Hoeptaization,” American Soctological Review, Vol. 28, No.4, August, 1963, pp. ST6587; and the lng series by Anta Bahn and hor sttocites atthe National Insite of Mental Health, Ae- ‘iow of studies was done originally im order to discover the “param- ‘tes of the Selection problem and to enich thei discussion. At the tine the paper was witten the task of reporting what had been found out about admissions to psychiatric clinics was of secondary Intorest, and is now immaterial Contents ONE Whats ethaamethoology? Two ‘tues ofthe routine grounds ‘of everyday activites THREE ‘Common sense knowledge of social structures: ‘the documentary methd of interpretation in lay an profesional fae ind FOUR «Some rules of correct decisions ‘that jorrs respect 104FIVE Passing andthe managed achievement ‘SEVEN Methodological adequacy nthe ‘quantitative study of selection criteria and selection practices in pychatie outpatient elnies EIGHT 5 The ational properties of scientific ‘and common sense activities ‘Appondicto chapter five 16 188 ONE What is ethnomethodology? “The following studies reek to treat practical activites, prac tical acumstances, and practical sociological reasoning as topics of empirical study, and by paying to the most commonplace activ- ities of daily ife the attention wsually accorded extraordinary ‘events, seck to leash about them a phenomena in their own right. ‘Their central recommendation is that the activites whereby mem- Doers produce and manage settings of organized everyday afi are Wential with members’ procedures for making those settings “zecount able” The “relive,” of “incarnate” charscter of account: ing practices and accounts makes up the erux ofthat recommends tion. When I speak of accountable my interests are directed to ‘such matters asthe following. I mean obsorvableand-eportble, fe, availble to mombers as situated practices of looking-and telling, I mean, too, that such practices consist of an endless, on- going, contingent accomplishment; that they are caried on under the auspices of, and are made to happen as events in, the same ‘ordinary affsts that in organizing they desenbe, that the prac tices are done by partie to those settings whose sil with, Jnowlelge of, and entitlement tothe detailed work oft plishment-whose competence—they obstinately depend nize, wee, and take for granted; and that they take thelr fcompetence for granted stelf furnishes partes with « eetng’2 suns m iNoMETHOoOLOGY distinguishing and pareuar features, and of course it farithes eee allay resources, troubles, projects, and the rest “Sue srvturally equivocal features of the methods and results by porns doing sociology, Jay and professional, of making prac: Rafactniiee observable were epitomized by Helmer and Res Sher!" When members’ accounts of cvenday activities are used we fresripions with which t0 locate, to identify, to analyze €0 SiaBiiy te make recognizable, of to fed one's way around in com- SHRM oceasions the prescriptions, they observe, are welt, Patnotemporally restricted, and “Tose.” By "loose & meant that TRAEY Wy re intendedly conditional in their Togial for, “the atu of the contin i sch that they ean often not be spelled PaFrcospletely or fully” The authors cite as an example & state: Beat stout suing Boot tactics in the 18th century. They point ‘ar the statement caries as test conlition reference (0 the state of naval ordnance. 1a elaborating conditions (under which such a. statement would held) the historian delineates whats typieal of the ‘ince and pesod. The fll implications of such rlerenee my Pesce and inexhaustible, for instance... ordnance soon Ponies ela metal working technology into metallurgy, min sees “Than, the conditions which ae operative. in {eaton of an historical taw may only be indicated in & (Rental ways and are not necessarily, indeed, in most eases epgat be expected to be exhaustively articulated. This cher Sete of fuch laws is here designed as Toosene. “Keonsequence of the Toosness of historical laws is that they See ol univers but tnerely quasrgeneral i that they Tague SF exceptions Since the conditions delimiting the aren ae abpltston of the law are often not exhaustively artica- {heeds supposed vooltion of the law may be explicable by Swing tt a legitimate, bot as yet unformulated, precon- Rees the laws applicablty is not Fulfilled in Whe case {under consideration. Consider that this hols in every particular ease, and olds not ‘by season of the meaning of “quasilaw” but because of invest fators acta, particular practices Ob Heimer ae Nils Rohe, On the Epitnalogy of he neat Sa Rete Sa Ri ete sen Further, Helier and Rescher point out ‘the laws may be taken to contain a tacit caveat of the asthe “otker things being equal” type. An historical Te hun not strictly univer in that inost be taken as Bt to all cases falling within the seope of its ex. ‘BEity formulated or formstable conditions, rater, it may Peeitotht to formulate relationships which obtain generally, fr beter, which obtain “as a rile” Such a “hw” we wil term quastlaw. In order for the Law wy be ai ot ae hat parent ert Rou, Weis only necessary that, if an appareat exception Sfouta occur, an adequate explanation be forthcoming, an RRolanaion, demonstrating the exceptional characteristic of TREK n hand by establishing the violation of an appropri sre Fluther unformlated, condition of the lows appbea- biti “These and other features can be cited for the cogency with which they daserbe merbere accounting. practices. Thus: (2) Whenever « member is required to domonsate that an acoount ways an actual station, he fvarably makes wse of the prac Neee of °c cetera” “unlese” and “let it pass” to demonstrate the fatloality of his echievernent. (2) The definite and sensible char ier ofthe mater that is being reported is setled by an assign, ioeb that reporter and anditor make to each other tht each will Ihave fummished whatever unstated understandings sre required. (MUch therefore of what és actually reported i not mentioned (3) (Over the time for their delivery accounts ate apt to require that “dor be willing to wait for what will have been said in order that the present sgulicance of what as boen sid wil have be- fume dew. (1) Like conversations, reputations, and careers, the pavicolars of accounts are bust up step by step over the actual Sy fad fees them (5) An ssn meer to depend heavily for sense upon their serial placement, upon their relevina® fo the auditors projects, or upon the developing course of the organizational occasions of their se Tn thor, recognizable sense, ot fae, oF methodic character, oF Inpersoality or objectivity of woousts are not independent of the socially evganizedoceasions oftheir use. Their rational features consi oF hat thembers do with, what they "make of” the ac-4 vis tNoUEMODOLOOY ‘counts in the socially organi actual acoasions of their use. Mem: ‘ers accounts are relexively and essentially tied for their rational Features to the socially organized occasions of their se for they re features of the sckally organized occasions of their use. “Phat te establishes the central top of our stakes: the rational accountability of practical actions as an ongoing, practical accom- Sishment, T-want to specify the topic by reviewing three of 8 Constituent, problematic phenomena. Wherever studies of pric Tiel ation and practical reasoning are concemed, these consist of the following’ (1) the watisfd programmatic distinction be: {oreen ae substitutability of objective (context free) for indexical {xpressons (2) the “uninteresting” esential rxivity of accounts St pretieal actions; and (3) the analyzabihty of actionsi-contert fs 8 practical accomplishment ‘The unsatisfied programmatic distinction between ‘and sebsitutbility of ebjestive for indexical expressions Properties that are eabbited by accounts (by reason of their being features of the scilly organized occasions oftheir use) are lvallable from studies by Jogiclns 28 the properties of indesical Caressa neal ences, Hus ote of reins ‘ohose sense cannot be decided by an avditor without his neces Sailly rowing or aswming something about the biography and the Purposes of the user of the expression, the circumstances of {Berutteranc, the previous course of the conversation, or the pat ticilag relationship of actual or potential interaction that exist between the expresor and the avditor. Rassell® observed that (Red in the face and suddenly out of conteol) Look! 1 ZS is ving toe pte. Fray 1 dont give darn case 7 My friend and T were talking about « man whose overbearing attitude annoyed us. My friend expressed his feling (8) Tim sek of him, (B) Would you explain what &s wrong with you that you ane Would you ena with you that you (S) Are you kidding me? You know what I mean, (B) Please explain your ailment (S) (He listened to me with a puzzled look) What came over you? We never tall tis way, do we? Beckground understondings and “adequate” recognition of commonplace events What kinds of expectancies make up a “seen but unnoticed” background of common understandings, and how are they related to pesons recognition of stable courses of interpersonal transac tons? Some information can be obtained if we fst ask how a per- son will ook at an ordinary and falar scene aad what will he seein if we require of him that he dona more than lok at it as ‘something that for him i “obviously” and “really” isnot 4s Undergraduate students were assigned the task of spending from ‘fteen minutes to an hour in their homes viewing its activites ‘while assuming that they were boarders in the household. They ‘were instructed not to act out the aesumption. Thirty-three st ‘dents reported their experiences. Tn their written reports students “behavioried” the howschold| scenes. Here is an excerpt from one account to lustrate my meaning. A short, stout man entered the house, Kissed me on the ‘heck and asked, “How was school” I answered poltely. He ‘walked ito. the litchen, kissed. the younger of the to ‘women, and said hello to the other The Younger woman ‘shed me, "What do you want for dinner, honey?" T answered, “Nothing” She shrugged her shoulders and said no. more ‘The older woman shulled azound the Kitchen muttering. The ‘man washed his hands, sat dow at th table, and picked up the puper. He read until the two women had finished putting ‘he food on the table. The three sat down. They exchanged file chatter about the days events. The older woman said fomethingrin a foreign language which made the thers ugh. Persons, relationship, and activites were described without re spect for their history, for the place of the scene in a set of devel- ping life circumstances, oF for the scenes as texture of relevant events for the parties themisives, References to motives, propriety, subjectivity generally, and the socially standardized character of the events were omitted. Descriptions might be thought of as those (oF a keyhole observer who puts aside much of what he knows in ominon with subjects about the scenes he i looking at, at ifthe ‘water had witnessed the soenes under a mild amnesia for his com> mon sense knowledge of social structures ‘Students were surprised to sce the ways in which members’ tueatmentsof each other were personal The business of one wat treated as the business of the others. A person being eniticized wat tunable to stand on dignity and was prevented by the others fom taking offense. One student reported her surprise at how frealy the had the run of the house. Displays of conduct and feeling ‘occurred without apparent concer for the management of im: pressions. Table manners were bad, and family members showedech ctor litle poenes An early cally in the scene was the Family mews ofthe day which fred ito eval te Sra ted ha wy of i or a tan. Familiar objects-perons wily, but furure snd 00m rangement wired student oor to tank of heme {chess trang Many become urcmfoably swe af ow Tata! maovements were Being made; of ow one was handling the sinenmreo howe oe opened dor or rected ster mem ter, Many reported tht the ttade wae dic to stain because ‘tht qualg, bickering and howe mations became d= Comftingy vsble. Frequentiy an account at reed newly vs She toes was accompanied by the student ssertion tht it foto of faniy probleme was ate" pctae he far was really «very happy one. Sever dents reported amily opps Sie fcing of onforming to apart” Seven stidentsatempted {o formulate the “eal meas actives governed by rules oft thc but gave up atm bad jo. They found It more convincing thin of thomsen “wna cemstanees “being on ea fell" Novertheles one sudeot war ngued. vith Bow deb eral ted succes he could predict the others responses fo Hib set, He wa not troubled by thir fecking ‘Many acountsroported vraton the tee: “Iwas glad when the oor se wp and could etm to the rea me" Students were conic tht the vw fom the boarders tue wero tr rel ore evionment. The boarders atide Proce ppearnce which hey daconted as eretng incon Frilter of ile and mending praia port. How had the Feta ways of looking tthe bone environments been atersd> How did their oking ifr from usual? ‘Sever contrasts to the “al” and “ried” wy of ooking are deedable from Gc accounts (1) In eking a tee bomet 2 boarders they replaced the mutual ecogaized tera of events write ule of foterpreation whch equied thatthe tual tex ture be temporaniyaregarded. (3) The ttl recogazed {tate war brought ander the jrsiton ofthe new tite as fein of the ese sroctures of hs texture, (2) Ths wat dane by engaging interaction with thers with am stode whose future and purpooe only the sacri about, that remained end ‘hued hat could be eter adoped or put aide att tne ofthe ” ser’ own choosing, and was « matter of wilful eletion. (4) The attitude at an Intention was rustsined as matter of personal and willed compliance with an explicit and single rale, (5) in which, kes game, the goal of the intention was identesl with looking things under the ausplces of the single rule sel (6) Above all, looking was not bound by any necessy for gearing on’ inter fats within the attitude to tho actions of other. These were the matters that students found strange ‘When students used these background expectancies not only 1s ways of looking at familial scenes but as grounds for acting in them, the scapes exploded with the bewilderment and anger of family members. In another procedure students were asked to spend fom fifteen minutes to an hour in their hemes imagining that they sere board fers and acting out ths assumption. They were structed to conduct themselves in a ezcumnspect and polite fashion. They were #9 avoid ‘getting personal, to use formal addres, to speak only, when spoken to Tn nine of forty-nine cases students either refused to do the assgament (Fvecases) or the try was “unsuccessful” (four ease). Four of the "no ty” students ssid they were afraid to doit; Ath sald she prefered to avoid the risk of exciting her mother who Inada heart condition, In two ofthe “unsuecessul” cases the family ‘treated i as a oke fom the beginning and refused despite the con- tinuing actions of the student to change. A third family tok the ‘iow that something undiclsed was the matter, but what fright ‘be was of no concer to them. In the fourth famaly the father and mother remarked that the daughter was being “ext nice” and undoubtedly wanted something that she would shortly reveal. In the remaining fourths of the cases family members were stupefid. They vigorously sought to make the strenge actions in teligile and to restare the situation to normal appearances, Re- ports were filled with accounts of astonishment. bewillerment hock, ansety, embarrassment, and anger, and with charger by various family members that the student was mean, inconsiderate, selish, nasty, or impolite. Family members demanded explant. tions: What's the mutter? What's gotten into you? Did you get fred? Are you sick? What are you being s0 superior about? Why are you mad? Ave you out of your mind or are you ust stupid? One| “ sts m eMoMEMoDo.oGY stdetsetely embarassed bis nother in fon of her fend by Asking sho minded i he ad mck om the refrigerator Med if you have a lite smack? Youve been eating Mle sash arta here for years witha asking me. Whats guten ito Jou?" One ‘othe, arated when her dghter spoke to her any when she sts spohn to, Dogan to hick in any denunciation of the Sage ter for hor dreect and insubordination and tie be cae the stents ster A father brated is doh ey being lnsticienty concemed forthe welfare of ater sad of acting ie sped chi ‘reasinally fami shembers would fst wet the sade 3 ton ta ove for« int cred routine whi wan soos paced by ination and exported ser at the set fr ot shen enough ws enough, Family members mache the “ole ess of the sadent"Coraily Mr: Horsberg™o charge he dent with acting Ike a wis guy and gonely sepa the “politenes” wi coon Esplnatins were soght in previous, undentandable mies ofthe stent: the stent was “working too han isle Aodent was “il there aden “another fhe wh a hanes When ore explanations by fay mens went wckooel ge, thee followed withdrawal by the oftaled moat teaped ication of the clpnt, relation, tad. donmeaton “Doni bother with hin, he's in one of hs moody agi Pay no stein but jst wt unl he aks me for someting; eae ‘oting ie, okay Tet sou td then some’, “Why sat nee ways crete fiction in oor fly ham Many scons Ported vesns ofthe following confrontation. fae allowed his son into the noon “Your Motor ugh. on aoe oe ell ed you oot aking ses. You had beter ges snsher ok hat dows route such Ist hours” To this the Sado see that be norte he cnet, bt hate fe ae ly waned ile pray. The father sponded n= gh ge “T dst want any move of tht out of you and yu eat ee your mother dsc ou eter move eat There were no cases in which the ston was net retorble pen the students expenaton, Nevertheless, fr the an tt ‘ty meres were oot amssd and only arly il they al ‘experience insttive a the stent aged ht as ood r to have been, After earn the explanation ster replld oly tn bea of fay of for, "Pease, no more of hee experiments Were not as, you taow.? Occsbnaly an expacation was 40 tented bt il ded fens sever cases ents eported thatthe explanations lft them, thelr fale, or both wondering Tow much of what th stodent had ai watch character and Tow inch the tent ely meat” Students fomd the asigment foul to complete. But in contrat wth omboken accounts students were Hl to report els oe ot ig tte ey wee the role that they were attempting to psy, and of being confront With stations but ot koowing how 2 boarder wold respond. “There were sever entiely wnerpected findings. (1) ARoogh many sodents cepted extensive rteaal in imagination, very few mentioned anticipatory fears or embarrassment. (2) On the ther hand, altbough enanticpated and nasty developments fre Gent eccre o oly oe catch stent report sevour regrets (3) Very few students reported heartfelt when the Hr at nr ay wre che ik pi ile ‘They frequent reported that response tothe anger of other thay became angry to etum and sipped easly oto subjectively recnerizable feelings and actions. Trcontat fo the rapa ofthe omookng “boarder” very fo reports “behaviors the cee Seckground understandings and socal efocts Despite the intrest in social fect that preva fn the soca sc ad dt tn sie cnt cn pity + the, supiingy le as been waiten on te socly sr {red conitons for tht prediction. The role tat «background mn seston py tract ca a tani however st tre fog: Thi lak of ae ‘Son fom perimental nvertgatos ial the more remarkable I ‘ne comnider tht i rely th lationship that penone are Concerned wih ithe cmon sess porrayale of bow t co dct coe daly alse so as to slat enusagm and ftendnes or avoid snety quik, shame, or boredom. The rtionsp be- tween the common tndentanlings and socal aoc may beo ots me emovouernoooicor utrted by thinking of the acting out stulent boarder pre dure one that involved the prfuctin of breierment tnd oper by touting an import sate of alu as someting Ua “Shayari and “ely ot "The exten of defnite and tong relationship between com son ndetandings tr eal afte can be dened and Sle oft fetes eplored by the delbente display of stat, pceure that foras proded hight amare elles The falmale was a falls ‘no of tho background expectancies Schutz described concems the sanctioned ase of doubt as acoustic feature of ord that's bony undestod in compe Sets propel that fr the Conduct of his eceray fre the eran tunes, assumes the ther person sme a wel dsc tate nue of the other person, the other peon esumes Hof hin, that ela Uonhip of undoobedsorependene the tented ration. Ship beeen the act oppetences of a et ond the tended cbc ot appens na peur way. Forte pen conling ii evenday ala, object, for hin ws be eset for athens we 2 thy appar to be, To tat ths gly under le of due rote thatthe neces snd mata for ich 8 rle tind We acid that bene ofthe dfletingselatnship ofan cst re of doubt {strat} * hat ho er pero as a ie Sppearc to bet isle lent of commen expen Gi, tee sho be feet aBestve sates or te doubt and She doubted. On he pat ofthe pended thee hold be 17h ome "aad isa” red sp A con Land get eh a a8 SPRL S ETT tence Shae SSA Rall Me, i eGo Te “tae Sch ge ete CT pel Caplan al fe ttn a SSG Ge ane ttre aco ra Se fh alg ct pcre th an a har of qh hr ck ean hep eS a ety Ger Sah a sone BN tah tetra ee cae ted tae tal ka Sa eee Sas St mh es re eee [Sto of th ute af day eT stole sonnets a timer on pages 35.58. the demand for justifestion, and when i was not forthcoming, as “mnyone could si" i cold not be, anger. For the experimenter we ‘expected embarrssiment to result from the dispanty, under the {gave of his victim, between the lester thing thatthe experimenter’ hallnges of “what anyone could see” made him out to be and the competent person he with others knew himself "after al” to bbe bat which the procedure required that he could not claim. Like Santayana’ clock, this formulation was neither ight nor ‘wrong. Although the procedure produce what we anticipated, i to fumished us and the experimenters with more than we had Dargained for. ‘Students were instructed to engage someone in conversation and to imagine and act on the assumption that what the other person was saying was directed by hidden motive which were bis real nes. They were to assume that the other person was tying t0 tock them or mislead them. Tn only two of thiry-Bve accounts did students attempt the ssigament with stangers. Most students were afraid that such & ‘Stution would get out of hand so they selected fiends, room: ‘nates, and family members. Even so they reported considerable {ehearsl in imagination, much review of possible consequences, ‘and deliberate selections among persons "The atitude was dificult to sustain and camry through, Students reported acute awareness of being “in an artifical game,” of being unable “to live the par,” and of frequently being "at los as to ‘what to do nex.” Ih the course of Istening to the other person, fexperimenters would love sight of the assigament. One student spoke for several when she said she was unable to get any results| Tecause 0 much of her effort was directed to maintaining an att tude of distrust that she was unable to follow the converstion. She sai she was unable to imagine how her fellow conversation. alate might be deceiving her because they were talking about sich Inconsoquential matter. ‘With many students the assumption thatthe other person was ‘ot what he appeared to be and was to be dlstrusted was tho sane 4 the attsbution thatthe other person was angry with them and Ihated them. On the other hand many victims, although they com> plsned that the student had no reason to be angry with them,a 10018 m enmouernooo.cor offered unsolicited attempts at explanation and conciliation. When this was of no avail there followed frank displays of anger and digust” ‘Anticipated and acute embarassment swiftly materialized for the two stadents who attempted the procedure with stranger. ‘After budgering a bus driver for assurances that the bus would ass the street that she wanted and receiving several assurances in eur that indeed the bus did pas the street, the exasperated bis “river shouted so that all passengers overheard, “Look lady, 1 told you once, did't I? How many times do 1 have tell you!” She "reported, “I shrank to the back ofthe bus to sink at low as T could {nthe seat, Thad gotten «good case of cold feet, a faming face, tnd a strong dislike for my assignment” ‘There were very few reports of shame or embersssment frm students who tied it with fxiends and family. Instead they were surprised, and so were we, to fad as one student reported tat “once I started acing the role ofa hated person T actually came to fel somewhat hated and by the time I left the table Twas quite angry." Even more surprising tous, many reported that they found the procedure enjoyable and this included the rel anger not only of other but their own Ahough students’ explanations easy restored mott situations, some episodes “tumed secious" and left a residue of disturbance for one or both pasties that offered explanation did ot resolve ‘This can be illustrated in the report of a student housewife who, atthe conclusion of dinner, and with some trepidation, questioned hier husband about having worked Inte the night before and raised 4 questo about his actually having played poker as he elaimed ‘onan evening ofthe week before. Wahout asking him what he had actully done she indicated an explanation wae called for. He re- lied sarcastically, "You seem to be uneasy about something, Do you know what it might he? This conversation would no doubt make more sense if T knew to” She accused hin of deliberately voiding the subject, although th subject had nt boen mentioned He insisted that she tell him what the subject was. When she did not say, he asked directly, “Okay, what’ the joke?” Instead of re- plying, “I give him s long, bur look” He became visibly upset, became very solctous, gentle, and persuasive, In reeponse: she acknowledged the experiment. He stalked off obviously unhappy tnd for the remainder of the evening was sullen and suspicious She, in the meanwhile, remsined at the table piqued and unsettled bout the remarks that her statements had drawn forth about his tot being bored at work with all the insinuations it might or ould mean.” particularly the insination that ho as not bored St work but he war bored with her and at home. She wrote, “I twas actually bothered by his emaris. «1 felt more upset and TWorsed than he did throughout the experiment. . «about how Inperturbable he seemed to be” Neither one attempted nor ranted to discuss the matter further. The following day the hus band confessed that he had been considerably disturbed and had the following reactions in this order: determination to. remain fl, shock at hit wife's “supicous nature; surprise to nd that ‘cheating on her war lable to be hard; a determination to make har igure out her own answers to hee questions without any denial ‘or help from him; extreme eelie! when tho encounter was revealed to have been experimentally contrived: but finally a residue of tansy felings which he charicterized as “his shaken ideas of my (the wifes) nature which remained forthe rest of the evening” Beckground understandings and bewilderment Earlier the argument was made thatthe possibilty of common tunderstanding does not consist in demonstrated meastres of shared Knowkage of socal structure, but consists instead and cntely a the enforceable character of actions in compliance with the ex pectancies of everyday hfe st a moralty. Common sense know. ledge of the facts of social ife for the members of the society is Instittionalized nowledge of the real word. Not only does com- son sense Knowledge portay a real society for members, but in the manner of 2 self fun prophecy the features of the real focicty are produced by persons’ motivsted compliance vith thse background expectancies. Hence the stability of concerted actions should vary directly with whatsoever ate the real conditions of Social organization that guarantee persons’ motivated compliance ‘with ths background torture of relevances asa legitimate order of| | | bolofs about life in society sen “Irom within’ the society. Soen from the person's point af view, his commitments to motivated compliance consist of his grisp of and subscription tothe "natural facts of life in society.” ‘Such considerations suggest that the firmer & societal member's asp of What Anyone Like Us Necessarily Knows, the more severe should be his disturbance when “natural fete of ie” are lnpugned for him as 2 depiction of hie real cicumstances, To test this s0g- seston a procedure would need to modify the abjectioe structore Of the familiar, known-a-common environment by rendering the background expectancies inoperative. Specially, this modification ‘would consist of subjecting person to breach of the background ‘expectancies of everyday ie while (a) making it dificult forthe person to interpret his station as a game, an experiment, a decep- tion, a pay, teas something other than the one known according to the attitude of everyday life as a matter of enforceable morality and action, (b) making it necessary that he reconstruct the “naturel facts” but giving him insufcent tne to manage the reconstruc: tion with respect to required mastery of practical eircurtances for which he must call upon his koowledge of the “nator! facts" tnd (c) requiring that he manage the reconstruction of the natal facts by himself and without consensal vilidation, Presumably he should have no alternative but to try to nomalize the resultant incongralies within the order of events of everyday life. Under the developing effort #sef, events should lose their perceivedly normal character. The member should be unable to recognize an events statue as typical, Judgments of likelihood should fal him. He should be unable to aSign present occurences to similar orders of events he has known inthe past. He should be ‘able to assign, lt alone to "se at « glance,” the conditions under ‘hich the events can be reproduced. He shouldbe unable to order these events to meansends relationships. The conviction should be lundermined thatthe moral authority of the familiar society com. pls thelr occurrence. Stable and “realistic” matchings of intentions and objects should dissolve, by which T mean thatthe ways, other ‘wise familiar to him, in which the objective perceived envionment serves as both the motivating grounds of felings and i motivated by feelings directed to it, should become obscure. In shor, the members eal perceived environment on hing its known-n-com non background should become “specfalyseteles”* 1eally Ipenking‘behviow dvcted to such. stores envionment ‘Botnt'te thw of bowikermest enerinty, itera confi, rycsocal lation, sete, and ances tity slong. wh Sthout symptoms of ace Sepersnalizaton, Sucre of ter lon shouldbe coespondingy doe “This epeting sea toa breach ofthe backgrond ex pectances Obviouly we woul ste for ls the rete of Procedure fr ther beac wae sal encouasing abot thi fom Titin At happens, the precede produced convincing and sy tected bewilderment snd sey "To begin with is nocnry to spy fst what expectancies sre ave detng wth Sets reported that the fstre of scene, “Soown in comon wth ar” wes compound and consted of sere constituents; Because they hve boon dered ete? Tall ett dacsin tobe extern ‘According to Schutte non ssmes, stumes thatthe other enon snes as well and somes ht se asues i ofthe Ser peron the eer person ssmer the tre for hi 1. That the determinations sigue toa event bythe wit ar eed mater hat held on ose at seco de onal option or soaly suc cacumstanes Of pe SEL winesem fey tht the dering roped imters of “obiectve necessity” o facts fate” 2. That a slatoship of undoubted conespondence the ne tiped elstonsip, betwen, theese pease thea feet and theintrded bjt that present el othe pepe {Shthepertiaar pearance 3 That the event that ksown i the manner that own can actly ad pote let the wits an can be ected iy acon {The ten mowed from Max Weber’ ey, “The ec yh fhe Wold Haga" From Mgr Weber sy Sceloy, a Gert and Wai Ml (ew York nerd Uae Pres. 1088), 30. Set Baye adage te mean ‘Gomme Ale Reiter pp. 207350 Carn, Chapter Er and “Common Sense Kowa af Sel Sractars Transcon of the Fourth Worl! Congres of Sots, 4 (Mian 8), 384. That the meanings of events are products of socially stand- andized proces of naming, reifation, and idealization ofthe wer’ Stream of experience, fey are the products of language 5. That present determinations of an event, whatsoever these may be, are determinations that were intended on previous occa sons and thet may be again intended in identical fashion on an Indefinite number of future occasions, 6, That the intended event is retained as the temporally identi cal event throughout the stream of experience 17. That the event has asi contest of interpretation: (8) a com- monly entertained scheme of interpretation consisting of «stand ardized system of symbols, and (b) "What Anyone Knows” Ley 8 precstablied corpus of socially warranted knowledge 8. That the actual determinations that che event exhibits for the ‘witness are the potential determinations that t would exhibit for the other person were they to exchange postions, 8. That to each event there comesponds ts determinations that ‘originate inthe witness and in the other person’ particular biog- raphy. From the witness point of view such determinations are irrelevant for the purposes 4 hand of ether, and both he other have selected and interpreted the actal and potential tinations of events in an empirically ential mauner that i su ent forall their practical purposes 10. That there isa characterise disparity between the publicly scknowledged determinations and the personal, withheld. deter rminations of events, and this private knowledge is held in reserve, fe, that the event means for both the witness and the other mre ‘han the witness ca 84. 1 That alterations of this characteristic disparity seman within the witness's autonomous conto, It is not the case that what an event exhibits as a distinctive ‘determination isa condition of its membership in a known i-the- ‘mannerofcommon-sense-envizonment, Instead the conditions ofits membership are the attsbutions that ite determinations, swhat- ever they might substantively consist of, cold be scen by the other person if ther postions were exchanged, or that iy featares are ‘ot assigned as matters of personal preference but are to be sen by anyone, fe, the previously enumerated features. These and ” only these enumerated features ireypective of any other deter nations of an event define the common sense character of an vent. Whatever ther determinations an event of everyday fe tay exhibit—whether it determinations are thase of perons m0 tives, ther life histories, the distributions of income in the popula tion, kinship obligations, the organization of an industry, ar What hosts do when night flls-if and only if the event has forthe wit- feat the enumersted determinations ie i an event inn environ: tment “koown in common with others” Sech attributions are features of witnesed events that are seen without being noticed. They aze demonstrably relevant tothe com ton sense thatthe actor takes of what t going on sbout him. ‘They inform the witness about any particular appearance of an Interpersonal envionment. They inform the witness as to the ral objects that actual appearances are the appearances of, but with fot thes attributed features necessarily being recognized in a de- erste or conscious fashion ‘Since each of the expectancies that make up the attitude of dally ie assigns an expected feature to the actors envionment, Bt should Be possible to breach these expectancies by deliberately modifying scenic events so as to disappoint these atibutions. By Alefniton, surprise is possible with respect to each of these ex pected features. The nastiness of surprise should vary diecly with the extent to wich the person as a matter of moral necessity com- plies with their se as «scheme for assigning witnessed appear- Snces their status as events in pereivedly normal environment In short, the realistic grasp by a collectivity member of the natura facts of fe, and his commitment to « knowledge of them as @ con dition ofsel-eteem as a bona-ide and competent collectivity mem bers the condition that we requze in order to maximize his te the tr “ompatenes tomeatecm th alletity mee Ie if ete tere tat he pas fume seedy as ‘ihn terrence megs ca tbe such cams fr ste fel {ey sang sft penn’ tt fo de letinty ember Mare oes fhe diz of the rte teen “comes” ged como ee eg luce i Enh nF Biter, “Poplar Intra Poche Homedics a Sin Soci {eatery of along, Let Angle 101. The tra ety Sod “eto mem eine Ins ccd th Tat Poe {oo sie in’The Socal System (New Yorks The Pee Fe of Chase, ey 19) andi he geo ncn te Ther of Soka by Tae Fons Etgud Shy Kaopar Noe, and Jone Re Pes (New Yo Toe Free Peat of Cen In 19)confasion upon the ocouim thatthe grounds ofthis grap are trade a source of ieducbe incongeaty 1 designed procedore to breath these expectancies while satis fying the thre conditions under which thelr breach would pre ‘maby produce confusion, te, tht the person could not tra the stuation Into play, «foe an experiment, a deception, and the Ike or, in. Lowinian termisaogy, that he could not eave the els that he have isuficent tie to work though redeiton fbis geal cxcumstances; and that be be deprived of consent ‘Support for an alternative deiton of social reality. “Twenty-eight. premedicl students were ran. individually through a thise-hour experimental interview. As part ofthe sole tation of subjects as well as atthe beginning of fe interview, the ‘experimenter identified hinsell ax « reprecentative of an Easter redial school who as attempting to leur why. the medical School intake interview mas such a stressful situation, It was hoped that identifying the experimenter asa person with medial schol ties would make i dilt for stents to “leave the Bld” once the enpectaney breaching procedure began. How the other two conditions of (a) managing « redeinton in inset tine and (6) not being able to count on consensal support for an atom tive debnition of socal realty were met wll be apparent nthe folowing deseipton Daring the Sst hour ofthe interview the student famished to the “medical choot representative’ the medical interview fava. Iie yy answering forthe repreentative such question a8 "what sources of information aboot «candiate are avalable to medical ‘chook? "What kindof man are the medical schol looking for “What shoud a good canidate do hn the interview?" and -What should he avoid With this much completed the sadent was tld that the representative’ rescrch interests had been satis, The sdnt wat then siked if he wool cae to ear reconding of tm fetal interview. All students wanted very much to heat the recording, Th earig wa fed on woe “ed hol inter viower and at “spplicnt." The apaliant was ¢ boot, is ln vas tngrammatical snd filed wth collins, he was ease, he contradicted the interviewer, he bragged, he ran down her schools and profesons, he insted on inowing how be bad done Fo in the fnterview. Detaled assesments by the student of the re- corded applicant were obtained immediately after the recording ‘vas Bnished, "The student was then given information from the applicants “oficial record” Performance information, and characteological information was farished in that order. Performance information dealt with the applicants activities, grades, family. background, furses, charity work, and the like, Characterological information fcossted of character assesements by “Dr. Gardner, the medical Sebool interviewer” "six psychiatrically trained members of the {edmissione committee who had heard only the recorded inter lew,” and “other stadents” “The information wat deberately contrived to contradict the principal points in dhe students assesment, For example, # the ‘dent said thatthe applicant must have come from a lower cass family, be was told thatthe applicant's father was vice president fof ¢ Ban that manufactured pneumatic doors for tains and buss. ‘Was the applicant ignorant? Then he had excelled in courses Ike ‘The Pootry of Milton and Dramas of Shakespeare. Ifthe student sid the applicant did not know how to get along with people, then the applicant had worked at a voluntary solistor for Sydenham Hospital in New York City and had raised $32,000 from 90 “big sivers” That the applicant was stupid and woold not do well Sclentife Geld was met by eting A's in organic and physical chem- ‘sty and graduate level performance in an undergraduate research ‘Students wanted very much to know what “the others” thought ‘of the applicant and had he been admitted? The student was told that the applicant had been admited and as living wp to the ‘promise thatthe medical school interviewer and the "ix pryhi rete" had found and expressed ina strong recommendation ofthe Spplican’scharacterologieal Stness which was read tthe student. [As forthe views of other students, the student was told (for exam ple) that thity other students had been seen, tht twenty-eight ‘were in entize agreement with the medical school interviewer's sssessment, and the romaning two had been slighty uncertain but {the Bist bit of information had seen him just asthe others had Following this the student sas suited to iste to the record a second tne, after which he was asked to assess the applicant again.Rests, Twenty-five ofthe twenty-lght students were taken i ‘The following does not apply to the three who were convinced there was a deception. Two of these are discused at the conch sion of this section ‘Students managed incongruiies of performance data with vig: ‘orous attempts to make it factually compatible with thelr orginal land vory derogatory assessments, For example, many std thatthe applicant sounded. ike or was a lower class person. When they were told that his father was vice present af national corpora ton which manufactured pneumatic doors for buses and tain, they replied Ike this “He should have made the point that he could count on money "That explains why he sald he had to work Probably his father made him Work. That would make a lot of his moans ‘unjustified tn the sense that things were relly not so bad” "What does that have to do with values?” When told he hed a stright A average in physical, science courses, students began to openly acknowledge bewilderment, He took quite variety of courses... tim bafled. Prob ably the interview wasn't very good mitror of his character.” "He did seem to take some odd courses. They soem to be fairly normal Not normal =. but does’ strike me tne way oF the other” “Well 1 hink you cn ante this way. py tenms. Soe «one posible way may be all wet bot this is the way [ook at that He probably sueed from an inferiority complex and thats an overommpensation for his Inferiority complex. is great marks =» his good marks are compensation for hs fete in socal dealings perhaps, 1 dont know" “Whoops! And only thd alternate at Georgia. (Deep sgh) 1 can see why held feel resentment about not being adzaited to Phi Bet Atempts to resolve the incongrutes produced by the character assesment of “Gardner” and “ihe other sx jadges” were much les frequent than normalizing. attempts with perfomance infonne tion, Open expressions of bewilderment and ansety interspersed with silee ruminations were characteristic: (Lavgh) Golly! (Silence) Ta think st would be the other ‘way around. (Very subdued) Maybe Tim all wrong). = my Drentation i allo, Tim completely balled ‘Not polite, Self-onfdent he certainly was. But not pole 1 dort know, Either the interviewer was «litle ery of ele ‘am, (Long pause) That rather shocking, It makes me have doubts about my own thinking, Perhaps my values ‘wrong, 1 don know. (Whistles) IAI don't think he sounded well bred at all. ‘That whale tone of voice!l T.-. perhaps you noticed ‘hongh, when he sid "You should have sid in dhe Bist place” Ifore he (the recorded medical school examiner) took it with’ smile, But even sl No, no Teast see that. "You should Ihave said that before” Maybe he was being fanny though. nereisng a =. No! To me it sounded impertinent! Ugh... Well that certainly puts a diferent slant on my conception of interviews. Geo «that» confuses me all the more ‘Well... (laugh) .. Mbib! Ugh! Well, maybe he looked like’a nice boy. He did. he did yet his point sero, Perhaps’ » soving the person would make «big di ference, Or perkaps I would never make good interviewer (electvely and almost inauibly) They dade mention any ofthe things mentioned. (HG: Eh?) (Louder) They did't mention aay ofthe things T mentioned and 50 1 feel lke a ‘compete fale Soon after the performance data produced its consternation, sto: dens occasionally asked what the other students made of him (Only after they were given “Dr. Gardner” assesment, and heir responses tot had een mace, were the opinions of the “other sts: ‘dents given. In some cases the subject was tld “Thity-four out of thinysve before you.” sometimes forty-three out of forty-Ave, nineteen out of twenty, fifty-one out offify-two. All the numbers swore lage. For eighteen of the twenty-five students the delivery hardly varied from the following protocols (34 out of 35) I dont know .. «1 stl stick to my orginal convictions. TT cam you tell mie what = Tewwrong. Maybe I... «had the wrong idea-the wrong ititude all along, (Can jou tell me? Tim aterested that there Should be such » disparity.) Definitely. T think itwould be definitly the other way. I can't make sense of Tm completely balled, believe me... I dont understand ‘how T could have been so wrong. Maybe my ideas~my eval uations of people ae—jst twisted. Lean maybe I had the wrong. Maybe my sense of vahicr «i oF tr diferent "from the other thirty-three. Bat I doa't Think that's the case. beeause usally in all mode festy Tsay this» T» » Team jodge people. {mean in elas, In organizations Thelong to» T usally judge them sight So therefore I don't understand a all how I could have been so wrong. I dont think Twas under any strest or strain here tonight but I dont understand i (48 ou of 48) (laugh) 1 don't know what to say now. Yin troubled by my inability to judge the guy bottr than that (Subdued) T shal sleep tonight, cortaily (very subdued) Dat it certainly bothers me. Sony that T didnt... Wall! One question that arses. I'may be wrong | | (Can you see how they might have saen hin?) No. No, i can't see no. Sure with all hat background material, yes, but I dont ‘te how Gardner did it without it. Well, [goes that makes Gardner, Gardner, and ie, me. (The other forty-five sti. ‘dents didat have the background material) Yeah yeah, yeah Tmcan Tin not denying it at al, I mean for myself there's no sense saying». OF coure! With their background they ‘would be secepted, especially the second many good God! ‘Okay, what ese? (36 out of 37) I would go back on my former opinion but 1 wouldnt go back too far just dont see ft. Why should T have these diferent standards? Were my opinions more or less in agreement? (No.) ‘That leads ine to think. ‘That's fanny. Unless you got thiryesiewmnal people. Teast under- sland it. Maybe ite my pemonality. (Does t make any df= ference?) It doce make 2 diference if T assume they'e correct. What I consider is proper, they dont. I's my ate fade» sil fo alla man ofthat sore would alienate me, ‘vise guy type to be avoided. Of course you can talk Hke that With other fellowes -. bot in an interiew? .. Now Tim ‘more confused than I was atthe beginning ofthe entie inter 6 view. I think I ought to go home and look in the misror snd Talk to myself Do you have any ideas? (Why? does it asta you?) Yes it does distr mel Tt makes me think my abilities erjwge people and values are avay of the normal. 185 not 2 healthy station. (What ference doe it make?) TET ack the way T ac it scene to me that Tom just putting my. head in the lin's mouth, T did have preconceptions but they're shattered to hell It makes me wonder about myself. Why Should T have these diferent standards. It all points to me. Of the twenty-five subjects that wore taken in, seven were uns able to resolve the incongruity of having been wrong about such ‘an obvious matter and were unable to “see” the alternative. Their fuifering was dramatic and nreeved. Five more resolved it with the view that the mesdcal school ad accepted a good man: Bve bihers with the view that had accepted bor. Although they hanged they nevertheless didnot abandon their former views. For them Gardner view could be see “in general” but it vasa grasp without conviction. When their attention was dravn to particu: lass the general picture would evaporite, These subjects were willing to atertain and use the “general picture but they sufered ‘whenever indigestible particulars of Uhe Same portrait came info Yew. Subscription to the “genera” picture was accompanied by 8 {eattaton of characteristics that were not onl the opposite of those in the subjects original arsesment but were intensihed by super Titive adjectives 20. that where previously the candidate. was {gauche, he war now “supremely” poised: where he had been bor Eh, he'was “very” natural; where he hed been hysterical, he was varyeilm; further, they saw the new features through a new appreciation of the way the medial examiner had been listening. ‘They sc, for example, that the examiner wos smiling when the applicant had forgotten to offer him « Gigarete "Three more subjects were convinced that there was a deception and acted onthe conviction through the interview. They showed no ‘iourbance. Two of them showed seute sifering as soon as it fppeared that the interview wat Bnished, and they were being ‘damised with no acknowledgement of deception, ‘Thee others, by sulfering in silence, confounded the expei- renter. Without giving any indication to the experimenter, they ‘egutded the Interview a8 a experimental one in which they wererequired to solve some problems and thought therefore they were being asked to do as well as possible and to make no changes in thelr opinions for only then ‘would they be contributing to the study. They were dificult for the experimenter to understand dur ing the interview because they displayed marked ansits, yet thelr remarks were bland and were not addressed to the inaters that ‘were provoking Finally three more subjects contrasted with the others. One of these insisted that the character assesmente were "semantialy Ambiguous and because there wae inslficent information s “high taxrelation opinion” was not possible. A second, the only one in the series, according t0 is account found the second portrait as convincing athe orginal one. When the deception was revealed he wae disturbed that he could have been as convinced ase was ‘The third one inthe face of everything shoved ony sight disturb ance of very short duration. However, he sone smong the sub: feats had already been interviewed for medical school and had excellent medical school contacts. Despite 2 grade point average Of loss than C, he estimated his chances of admissian as fair and had expressed his preference for carer inthe diplomatic service lover a eareer in medicine, ‘As final observation, twenty-two of the twenty-eight subjects expressed marked reliel—ten of them with explosive expressions ‘when the deception was disclosed. Unanimously they said thatthe news of the deception permited them to retum to their former ews. Seven subjects had to be convineed that there had een Aeception. When the deception was revealed they asked what they swore to believe. Was the experimenter telling them that there had Thcen a deception inorder to make them feel better? No pains were spared and whatever tth o ies that had to be told were told in frder to establish the truth that there had een a deception, ‘Because metivsted compliance tothe expectancies that make up ‘he atitudes of daily ife consist from the person's point of view (of his grasp of and subscription to the “natural facts Of life,” vara tions in the organizational conditions of motivated compliance for Aliferent collectivity members would consist of member’ deren tual gasp of and subscription to the “natural facts of life” Hence the Severity of the effecs described above should vary directly with the enforceable commitments of members to a grasp of the fatural facts of life. Purther, because of the objective character of the grasped common moral order of the facts of collectivity ie, the severity should vary with thelr commited grasp of the natural facts of life and independently of “personality characterises.” BY penonality’ characteristics I mean all characterises of persons that Jnvestgators use methodologially to account for a pero's courses of action by referring these actions to mate or les sstematically fonceived motivational and “iner Ife” variable while disregard: fing sodal ad cultural system effects. The remsts oF most com onal personality asessment devices and clinical paychitrie pro- cedures satisfy this condition. ‘Thereby, the following phenomenon should be discoverable Imagine a procedure whereby a convineing assessment can be sade of the extent of & person's committed grasp of the “natural facts of socal Ife” Imagine another procedure whereby the extent of a person's confison can be asteseed ranging through the various Aegres and mixtures of the behaviors described before. For a set of unselected persons, and independently of personality dotennina- tions, the fail relationship between the committed "grasp of ‘afural facts" and “eonfusion shouldbe random. Under the breach of the expectancies of everyday life, given the conditions for the optimal production of disturbance, persons should shift in exlib- fed confusion in an amount that it coordinate with the original extent of thei grasp of the “natural Facts of life” ‘The type of phenomenon that T propose is discoverable is por: trayed in Figures 1 snd 2 which are based on the study of the ‘seeny-eiht premedical students reported above. Prior to the ine luoductions of incongruous material, the extent of students sub scription to 8 common moral order of facts of premedical school life and the students anxiety correlated 036. Alter the incongra- ‘ous material had been introduced and unsuccessfully nonmalized, fand before the deception was revealed, the corelation wae 75. Because assessment procedures were exizemely crude, because of serious errors in design and procedure, a because of the post hoc fargument, hese results do no more than illustrate vehat am tlle {ng about, Under no circumstances should they be considered findings,i. as ie : ? : iE iB : ie So j + Regeses [ROURE 1. Conlon ofthe ene! of bias abctpon fo “he ntl ec" ah ntonalod aer of tne sueet pedal ‘Sos ond nil encny were = 028) The relevance of common understandings to the foc thet ‘models of man in society portray him os a judgmental dope Many studies have documented the nding that the social stand- anlization of common understandings, irrespective of what it is ‘hat & standardized, orients persons actions to scenic events, and famishes penons the grounds upon which departures from pet coivedly normal courser of Maire sre detecable, restoration ts Inide, and eflortfl action Is mobilized ‘Social science theoriste-most particularly social pychiatrsts, social poychologets, anthropologists, and socologists—bave used the fact of standardization to conceive the character and conse ° i a ne ‘ yap comer ee Senos “ar hg in eye cr een eee FIGURE 2. Conlaton ofthe ennt of bie sbcon fo “the etl Yocw" or an intonained arer sf tnoladge bout Premed! ‘Sorc and are ey me 788 quences of actions that comply with standardized expectancies Generally they have acknowledged but otherwise nogleced the fact that by these same actions persons discover, crate, and sus tain this standardization, An important and prevalent consequence ofthis neglect i that of being misled about the nature and cond ‘ons of stable ations. This occurs by making ovt the member of the society to be a judgmental dope of cultural or psychological tort, of both, with the reule thatthe enpublished results of any Accomplished study ofthe relationship between actions and stand- Srdized expectations will variably contain enough incongrocus ‘material to invite extent revisionry ss enoouerooo.oor 3By “earl dopo I refer to the masini sodety wih produes the sable estes of he society hy cing om lance wit prestablshed and legate aeratver of ation Tint he common culture provides.‘ -prcoloeal dope i the multe ppeoltesoity who reduces the sable Kaus Si thesia by chokes ang sera eowrch of action that competed on the grounds of pry ogy. cond Timing history, and the oarbls of etl fonctoning The com tno feature hi thease ofthese adel of mani the fat that ‘Curses af common sense natn of jupmest which ivale tho puns ur of common ens fnowedgt of soa cores rer the temporal “ocean” of ere and tow atone trate as epphenomena. “The misleding carter of dh se ofthe jgmetal dope to pony the relay between standard! expectancies aod oust of cin ges fo the problem of adequate eplnstion a the cmtolngcosdeaton nthe svestiators decison to eter confer order the common see rants whch dei ing the necesaryretonai Between cours of action. en eh problemas comidamtins av penpectval choice, bee {ty apd nme tne, A favored soon to portray wht the Irom ations wil ave come to by wg the sable ct Tena tiny come tees 8 oie of thet! spate rom shih to portay the near character ofthe pithy whereby the en vel esembled. Hieebies of need apstons, oa tommon cate enforced ues of cae favored devices {erring the pola of recent inference totems, thoagh A the cst of making ut the persons tobe udgmentl ES “ow ian ivestigator doing i when he making tthe mem era aiety to ben Jadnental dpe? Sever examples wil Fern some seis and corsaquencer Trabigned talents he lak of berguning for standard pid * Common seg sna ae ded tah Sus, "Common seta Ste Remain’ Hay At iCal Pon ‘Hi‘rblen of Sl Rea, pp 9-4 nal“ rll of Rati J Be Wain Cal ie Sade Soa i. 038. Sy T/GLi ile sm ets ee wed Of an Bi Se emanation fc o merchandise, The relevant standardized expectancy i the “insite Uonaized one price rule” a constiteent clement, according to Parsons of the institution oF contract Because of ity “intemal ized” character the student-customers should have been fearful and shamed by the prospective assigament, and shamed by having done i Reciprocal, ancety, and anger should have been com ‘monly reported for sales persons. Sitycight students were require to accomplish one trial only for any item costing no more than two dollars, and were to offer such les than the asking pice. Another sitysoven students were equied to accomplish 2 series of six Wal: three for items cast Ing two dollars or less, and thre for items costing fifty dallas of ‘Findings: (a) Sales persons can be dismised as ether having been dopes in diferent ways than current theories of standardized expectancies provide, oF not dopes enough. A few showed some fmxity; vcasinally one got angry. (b) Twenty per cent of the single ties refused to try or aborted the effort, as compared with three per cent of those who had been assigned the series of six tras. (e) When the bargaining episode was analyzed as consist ing of a series of steps~anticipation of the teal, approaching the sales person, actualy making the offer, the ensuing interaction, temninating the episode, and afterwarde—it was found that fare fceurted with the greatest frequency in both groups in anicipat- ing the assizment and approaching the sales person for the fist fry. Among the single tals the number of persons who reported Alsomfort declined. with cach successive step in the sequence, Most of the students wo bargained in two or more trials reported ‘that by the third episode they were enjoying the assignment. (d) Most students reported ess'discomfor in. bargaining for high priced than low priced merchandise. (e) Following the six epi- sodes many students reported that they had learned to their “st ‘rise that one could bargain in standard priced setings with some Fealutie chance of an advantageous outcome, ad planned to do 20 im the future, particularly for cont merchandise Such findings suagest that one can make the member of the society out to be a cultural dope (a) by portraying « member of tat Parone, “Eonamy, Ply, Money ad Pow” Stand man eet, 58no TUDE erivourHoDoLoa" the society as one who operates by the rules when one és actually lalking about the anticipatory anscty Sat prevents him from per tmitting a situation to develop, let sane confronting a situation, in ‘hich he has the altemative of acting or not with respect to a Tule, or (b) by overlooking the practical and theoretical Impor- tance of the mastery of fears. (c) If upon the arousal of troubled feelings persons avoid tinkering with these “standardized” ex: pectancies, the standardization could consist of an attributed stand Erdization that is supported by the fact that persons avoid the ‘ey situations in which they might learn about thom. Lay as well as professional knowledge ofthe nature of rule gov- med setions and the consequences of breaching the rues is prom- fnently based on ust such procedure, Indeed, the more important the rule the greater isthe likelihood that knowledge is based on voided tests, Strange findings mst certainly awalt anyone who famines the expectancies that make up routine backgrounds of ‘common place activities for they have rarely been exposed by i Yestigators even to as much revision as an imaginative rehearsal oftheir breach would produce. “Another way in which the member ofthe scity can be made a Judgmental dope is by using any of the available theories of the oral properties of signs and shmbols to portray the way persons construe environmental displays as sigaieant ones. The dope is ‘made out in several ways. I shall mention two. (a) Characteristic, formal investigations have been con- cemed either with devising normative theories of symbolic usages for, while secking deseriptive theories, have settled for normative tones. In either ease st necessary to instruct the construing men Der to atin accordance with the Investigator’ structions inorder to guarantee thatthe investigator wil be able to study their usages as instances of the wages the investigator has in mind. Bot, fo lowing Wittgenstein.” person's actual usages are rational wages in tome “language game.” What i their game? As long as ths programmatic question is neglected, itis inevitable that person's ‘sages wil fall shor, The more will this be so the more are subs jects interests in usages dictated by diffrent practical considers: {ons from those of investigators. {ge Waar, Phe Ions (Oda: Bast Ba n (b) Available theories have many important things to say sbout such sign functions as marks and indications, but they are sent ‘on such overwhelmingly more common functions as glosses, syne: oche, documented representation, euphemism, irony, and double fentenve. References to common tense knowledge of ordinary af {ales may bo safely disregarded in detecting and snalyring marks and indications as sign functions because users disregard them a8 well. The analysis of irony, double entendre, glosses, and the ike, however, imposes dierent requirements, Any attempt to consider the related character of utterances, meanings, perspectives, ad ‘orders necessarily requires reference to common sense knowledge of ordinary ffi Although investigators have neglected these “complex” wages, they have not put their problematic character entirely aside. 10: stead, they have glossed them by portraying the usages of the member of a lnguage community a either culture bound or need compelled, or by construing the pairing of appearances ond in- ‘tended objcts—the paring of “sign” and “referrent”=as an associa tion In ch case a procedural description of such symbolic weges 1s precluded by neglecting the judgmental work of the user Precisely this judgmental work, along with its reliance upon and Its reference to common sense knowledge of socal structures, forced itso upon our attention in every eae where incangrates ‘were induced. Our attention was forced because our subjects had exactly their judgmental work and common sense knowledge t0 contend with as matters which the incongeuites presented to them 25 practical problems. Every procedure that Involved. departures from an anticipated course of ordinary. afsrs, regariless of whether the departure was guoss or slight, roused recognition in subjects that the experimenter was engaged in double tlk, iony, ‘losses, euphemism, or lie. This occured repeatedly in departures from ordinary game pla. Students were instructed to play tcktacktoe and to mix thelr subjects by age, sex, and degree of acquaintance. ARer drawing the ticktacktoe matrix they invited the subject to move fist. After the subject made his move the experimenter erased the subjects mark, moved it to another square and made his own mark but without giving any indications that anything about he ply was ‘unusual. In al of 247 tele stadents reported that subjects treatedn srs 4 erionosoicor the move as a gesture with hidden but definite significance, Sub. jects were convinced thatthe experimenter was “after something” that he was not saying and whatever he “vealy” was doing had pothing to do with tckacktoe. He was making a sexual pas, he ‘was commenting on the subject's stupidity he was making a shir ng or an impudent gesture. Menticl lfects oacured when st dents bargnined for standard priced merchandise, or asked the ‘other to clarify his commonplace remarks, o joined without invita tion a strange group of conversational, or used a gaze that during an ordinary conversation wandered “randomly” by time to varius objects in the scene ‘Sill another way of making the person out fora cultural dope isto simplify the communicative terture of his behavioral envron- ment. For example, by giving physical events preferred status one fan theorze out of existence the way the person's scene, a 4 exe ture of potential and actual evens, contains not only appearances tnd attributions but the persons own lively innor states as wall We enoomntered this in the following procedure ‘Students were insrictd to select someone other than a Family member and in the course of an ordinary conversation, and without Indicating that anything unusual was happening, to being thie faces up to the subject's unt thelr noses ware almost touching. According to most of the 79 accounts, rogardlese of whether the Dirs were the same or diferent sexes, whether they were a6- fquaiotances oF close friends (stranger were prohibited), and regardless of age diferences excopt where children were involved, the procedure motivated in both experimenter and subject atibu- tions of a sexual intent onthe part of the other though confimma- tion ofthis intent was withheld by the very character of the pro- cedure. Such attributions to the other were aceompanied by the persois own impulses which themselves became part ofthe soene 45 thelr not only being desired but their desing, The uncon firmed invitation to choose had ir accompanying confictfal het itaney about acknowledging the choice and having been chosen. ‘Auempted avoidance, bewidlement, acute embarrassment, fur tiveness, and above all uncertainties of these as well ar tncer tsintos of fear, hope, and anger were characteristic. These fects were most pronounced between males. Characterstically, expert Imenters were unable to restore the station. Subjects were only n partially accepting of the experimenters explnation that it has been done “as an experiment fora course in Sociology.” They often complained, “AI right, it was an experiment, but why did you have to choose me?” Characterstially, subject and experimenter wanted some further sesoution than the explanation furnished but ‘were uncertain about whats could or should consist of Finaly, the membor may be made out to be a judgmental dope by portraying routine actions as those governed by prior agree. ments, and by making che Wkelihood that « member will recognize eviance depend upon the existence of prior agreements, That this isa matter of more theoretical preference whore use theorizes es sential phenomena oot of existence can be reen by considering the ‘commonplace fact that persons will hold each ote to agreements whose terms they never actually stipulated. This neglected prop erty of common understandings as far reaching consequences when it i explicitly brought into the portrayal of the nature of agreements.” “Apparently no matter how specie the term of common undes- standings may bea contract may be considered the prototype they atta the stats of an agreement for persons only insofar as the stipulated conditions cary along an unspoken but understood ft cote cluse. Specie stipulations are formulated under the rule ofan agreament by being brought under the jurisdiction ofthe cetera cause. This does not cour once and forall, but is exten: "he es a opti omc of he seo ta tl ie en Be titania agate ata Feira termes ise es Yee teach" Cansece teebey a Ears Mitts Held Geta Cease fies eerie ivr leper SST tte dec vb cs Isha) sat nS, Orsay bee 2 eed 8a) ete eon Se OER ay vc amet wn a es ean “eg ore eter ‘eras gien by Bier, Cal nd Sas on 'Reorne Actus the seus Anal Conterence on Weld Afi, Unie of Cao, Sond" 13" at td to Cofannce tamer” 1a mmouEMDOLoOY ty Set oth ir nd ate eine ae Se ei et i ama 5 Seto Re aoe ot mr OSS at aa ether pe SEL Bae Now pie hoe Tau" sSr hise Teme lesan tt ticity on i ek fon BOG Sat ees gst oy Fe a oe a ngs gta be eel rote hr tn herr eer sch bi tel eprom e's Case se poe oO Sa eras os So tare tans She a gee wy pla some retin cE el at Wich eer me Som ha spe ab cael ee sgh Ae Tota aes po Sh a tee pea ame ey ee Serena Lh Br in pee Wn oss crc of Sa ae an Se Thies sa ahs mah of den ae ce Cg gine opt eo Sree se il whee Aloe ha SOCUTNC daySemnbct itm SEAS Es ng gta erin an Tea te a A eames ane ene re tee So ped een trn eon tape ed Tipe cha Tae al soto eters tt ee ST aie ty dn lnc Soo Line bed dp ete fen eye “pte ns gel nae! wane sea eRe TEER ps dat reo wna nines oa heat see mee cee ‘ecomstocton te the cmp) prosdem of demmtting the hove fs res 7 fn the one hand, and the disappointments, frustrations, and fall. hres, on the other, that persons must inevitably encounter by #e3- ton of seeking to comply with agreements, can be managed while Fetaning the perceived reasonableness of actual socially organized setivities, ‘A smal scale but accurate stance ofthis phenomenon ws co0- sistenly produced by a procedure in which the experimenter en- {gaged others in conversation while he had a wire recorder hidden “inde his coat. In the course ofthe conversation the experimenter open his jacket to reveal the recorder saying, "See what I ave?” ‘An intial pause was almost invariably followed by the question, “Wat are you going to do with i” Subjects claimed the breach ‘ofthe expectancy tht the conversation was "between us” The fact ‘that the conversation wat reveled to have been recorded met vated new possibilities which the partis then sought to bring tnder the jurisdiction of am agreement that they had never spe- ‘iBcally mentioned and that indeed did not previously exist, The fonversation, nor seen to have heen recorded, thereby acquired fresh and,problematic import in view of unksown uses to which iX might be tumed, An agreed privacy was thereupon treated as though it had operated al along. Concluding remarks 1 have been arguing that «concen forthe satre, production, and recognition of resontble reali and smalyeable actions tet the monopoly of phlsophers and profesional soaps. Menben of society tre concemed at 4 mater of coue and secs wth these matter both as fates ae forthe solly smanaged production of thar everyday asim The sty of come tron sense Inowedge and’ comifon‘snse actives cfs of {eating probate phenomena the actual methods herby members of 8 socety doing sociology, ny or profesional ake eect of ely iy tab Tag al cover” of common sear pone pertapr brome profssonl ‘Scobie mente, hae had too mach odo wk cmon Sewe know ie sacl stress otha topes eee for their inguires an not enough todo with only and exchavly 28 exilogysprogranmati piTHREE Common sense knowledge of social structure: ‘the documentary method of interpretation in lay and professional fact finding Sociologially speaking, “common cuftre” refers to the so- cinly sanctioned grounds of inference and action that people use in ther everyday aflis and which they assume that others us in the same. way, Socialy-sanctioned-fats-ofifein-sciety-thatany- Dona fde-memberof-the-society-knows depict such matters as the conduct of family life, market organization, distributions of honor, ‘competence, responsibilty, goodwill, income, motives among mem bers, frequency, causes of, and remedies for trouble, and the pes fence of good and evil purposes behind the apparent workings of {ings Such socially sanctioned, facts of social life consist of de seripions from the point of view of the collectivity members* in: teres in the management of his practical allies. Basing our usage "upon the work of Alfred Schutz? we shall call such knowledge of focally organized environments of concerted actions. “common sence knowledge of social structures.” "The discovery of common culture consist ofthe discovery from sethin the socety by roca sient of the existence of common The tm, “olltty membenig” & ined in tle acord ith ‘obet Btn supe In Th Sot yon Phono Seca Part 2 fed Schot, Collected Paper 1: The Prblam of Social Realy (1962); Caleta Papas Iie Stuer ty Social Theory (1004; Called Paper I Sites Phoomenaoel Phowphy (19). % - sense knowledge of socal structures. In that discovery the social Scientist treats knowledge, and the procedures that societal mem bere ute for is assembly, tet, management, and transmission, as objets of theoretical sociological interest ‘This paper is concemed with common senso knowledge of 3 cial structures a5 an object of theoretical sociological interest. Tt 's concerned with desritions of a soclty that sts members, pro- fessional sociologists included, ae 4 condition of their enforcesble rights to manage and communicate decisions of meaning, fact method, and causal texture without interference-ie,, as 4 conde ton oftheir “competence™use and treat as known in common with other members, and with other members take for granted. Spe- cally the paper is directed to a description of the work whereby ecsions of meaning and fact are managed, and bow a body of factual Knowledge of social strctires assembled in common sense situations of choice The documentary method of Interpretation ‘There areinnumersbe situations of sociological inguity in which the investigtor—hether he be a professional sociologist or 4 per- son undertaking an inquiry aboot social structures inthe interests ‘of managing his practical everyday affais—can assign witnessed sctual appearances to the status of an event of condict only by Imputing biography and. prospects to the appearances. This he does by embedding the appearances in his presuppored knowledge Of soil structures. Thus I frequently happens that in order forthe Investigator to decide what he is now looking at he must wait for future developments, only to find that dheseFotures i turn are in formed by their history and foture. By waiting to see what will have happened he learns what it was that he previously saw. Either tht, or he takes imputed history and prospects for granted. Motivated actions, for example, have exactly these troublesome properties therefore occurs that the investigator frequently must elect ‘among altemative courses of interpretation and inquiry tothe end ‘of deciding matters of fac, hypothesis, conjecture, fancy, and the rest, despite the fact that in the calculable sense of the term “Amow.” he dace not and even cannot “know” what be is doingprior to or while he 1s doing it, Pld workers, most partelasly Fre, ote ethnographic an lings sues tn etngs where Roy cannot promappene knowledge of soll sore, ae por ge bot naaitod wth such stations, bt tier Opes of Po: edna socologial inquty ate not exempt. ‘Newrdelrs body of Knowledge of sal strictures & some tow saabled, Sonetow, deco of meting, fads, mead, i cruel tetwe are made, How, inthe course of the Inquiry Sevng which such decsons mast he made, does this ocu? Te concmn for the socologsts problem of achieving an adequate serpin of eure events a iportan case of whieh Si be Webers familar “behav with = bjecive mening ached and govemed thereby in their couse” Kae Manabein® fumithed an spproginate deseapton of one proces. Mannheim {alled "Whe documentary method of interpretation” It contrasts Sih the metbods of Her! bservation, yet thas rcopiable Reith what many sosologialrvsrcher, lay and profesional, tetually do. “Kaording to Manne, the docmenary method sveles the seach for an ential bonalogous patie underlying. & St vriery of totally diferent elton of meaning” * “Toe meted costs of eating am actual appearance as “the dor ping to at aaing oe oe ‘roel ndesyig pattem, Not only the undeying. et SET tom i nda documentary evden, but he ad “Glad documentary evidences i ther tor, are interpreted ob the bass of wha known about the onderyng patter, Each is thed to daborte the ober “Tus std is Tecognzable forthe everyday neces of roo eqing what + posan stalking bout given tate does mat {0 xy hat he meno gsi ch oon ct ‘heer amd objets ey mie, fen gestures, and promises t ['ogneabie ar wll tr deciding tad soslogialy analyecd Secuttos f eoei as Galina statgir forthe management otimpresions, Eschon'yenty css, Rusan's type of cone ome Pemond value stems, Malnowshis magic praction, {kat Menken, “Oy he Interpetation of Welrahawng” in Ema onthe Scgy of Knute. 598 ids pt ” Bales interaction counts, Merton's types of devience, Lazarfeld’s Tatent structure of attitudes, and the US. Ceasu? occupational ow iit done by an investigator that from replies to @question- aire he finds the respondent’ “atutude"; that vn interviews with office personnel he reports their “bureaueraially organized ctv. ites"; that by consulting crimes known tothe police, he estates the parameters of “real erime"? What is the work whereby the ln vestigator sets the abserved occurrence and the intended occur rence into a comespondence of meting, such that the investigator finds it reasonable to treat witnested actual appearances as evi dences of the event be means to be studying? ‘To answer these questions itis necessary to detail the work of ‘the documentary method. To this end a demonstration ofthe doc mentary method was designed to exaggerate the features of thi ‘method in wse and to catch the work of “fat production” in Bight ‘An experiment ‘Ten undergraduates were solicited by telling them that research was being done in the Department of Paychistry to explore alter native means to psychotherapy “ab a way oF giving pertons advice bout their personal problems” (sic). Each subject was seen ind vidually by an experimenter who was falsely represented a st ent counselor in taining. The subject was asked to Srv dicuse the background to some serious problem on which he would like tdvice, and then to addres to the “counselor” series of questions ‘each of which would permit a "yes" or “no” anvwer. The subject was promised that the “eounselor” would attempt to answer to the best of his abiity. The experimenter counselor head the ques. tions and gave his answers from an adjoining room, via an inter ‘communication system. After describing his problem and furnish ing some background 0 it, che rubject asked his fist question, ‘Aftor a standard pause, the experimenter announced his stswer, “yes” or "no." According to instructions the subject then removed «wal plug connecting him withthe counselor so thatthe “coneeloe will not hear your remarks” and tape-recorded his comments on the exchange. After theie were completed, the subject plugged the microphone in and asked his next question, After he receivedthe answer, he again recorded his comments, and thus proceeded though at least fon questions and answers. The subject had been told, "Mos people want to ask atleast ten questions “The sequence of auwers, evenly divided between yess and nos, was predecided with «table of random numbers. all subjects ask- ing the sane number of questions were administered the same ‘series of yes and no annvers. Following the exchange of questions tnd answers the subject was asked to surumarize his impressions fof the entre exchange. An interview followed. ‘The following ate ilistative unedited protocols case sunyecr: Ok, this isthe situation that 1 am presented with. T happen to be of the Jewish faith and I have been dating a Gentle fl now for shout two months. My dad is not directly opposed to this stuation, bot T feel at the same time that he is not exactly pleased svth it, Mother fels that as Jong as Dad is not directly foppored to this situation that I should go ahead and continue dat- ing until he makes some direct statement to the contrary. My rea- son for feeling why’ he isnot too pleased with this i that he as never sid dout date her, but atthe same time he wil come up ‘with digs and sayings that make me feel very ill at ease about “ating the gil. My question is, do you fel under the present cit. feumstances that I should continue or stop dating this ga? Let ne put tht in a postive way. Do you fee that I should continue dat- Ing thie gi? xrenimberen: My answer 15 no. senyrcr: No, Wel, thet is kind of interesting. I kinda feel that there i eally no great animosity between Dad apd I but, wel, per Inaps he eels that grenterdiske will grow out of this. | suppose for maybe fis easier for an outsider to Seo certain things that T am ‘lind to at thie moment would like to ask my second question now. exrenneerer: Oy funjecr: Do you feel that I should have a further discussion with Dad about this situation oF not? Should I have futher disc ‘cussion sith Dad over this subject about dating the Gentile gil? ‘rermancewren: My answer is ys. soyuct: Well el tht i resonable but 1 really dnt know wt to sy to hi, Tenn he set be ot realy foo under aning nother words he sen 0 be sid ely t isco he Sato, Iomeon at ast apps tha way to me o far, Bat T igus ifs worthwhile toe, val want conti to date eerthat I wil goon and have this dcuson with Dad Tray cout kw wt to sy berse I enn I am tinge am not in love wih her or anything bt Leal rever row what gong {come ot {gus we should have a discus sed on what he fore pssbitiee might be and how he wold feel about hat Hema not be to roel opposed now becrse wae only dt ing ut pean he so ftre comets tht he woo relly TRG to get of his che the sme. Thm weady for my thd : If after having my conversation with Dad and he says to con- tio ting herb 3 these ine be er me an inpresion that heal not ho rely docs not wat te to date Be ut he's ony doing t berwse he wants to bea goed Dad, should ‘der these coins, shuld Isl Gate the gi rmursren: My aoeer i yee fenyeor Well Lam actully surprised a he answer. L expected 40 anner on that. Periaps the beens you ste no qe fare of my dad and hit weattons ao he seems tobe the ype Of person thats snatve and therefore hei very cael he sry that he wil bande things Even hugh be might ave ad fp oud and dat her 1 perhaps woul fel guy i king that hereily il not want me to comin to date he, Though dont ow tha wold cally elp the eatin sy. 50, well ehape we wil ok into theater and at another question Pim fad forthe fourth guston sow ater having th dncsin vat Dad and geting » postive nove rom him bata the sumo time feta tis as ot i forest epnton do you think thet it woul be prope for me to Inve my toter hve sero talk with hin steer ty td ge «ter tection to Dads epntn on the stato? mrss My anne iy Sensec: Well hi coms fatto me. fel perhaps that be woskd ‘be hnctr with Moor abut the sation OF couse tat might Prescot Poblen: Would Mother come bck sn be completelyhonest with me? She seems to be more liberal than Dad, not to say that Mother would le about but she would be a lite more liberal about things ike this and perhaps in her course of conversi- ‘on with Dad she would try and preset my side to him and there {ore once again I get two answers IFT Jook a that way T doa think that I am going to et to Bist base anyway, but at leat I feel that we are moving along some way. Iam ready for my fifth qestion now ‘Do you think dhat I should tell his Gentile gil who Tam dating | ‘he problem that Tamm having with my folks at home or should T ‘wait unt, well that is another question. Do you fel that T should lull the gil that I am dating the problems that Lam having at ome over her religion? rexrennerren: My answer i no fmyecr: Well once again I am surprised. OF course, that might depend om how much you case forthe gil and how much longer 1 {eal that I am going to be dating her But 1 personally fel that it is only right to tell her for if she i perhaps thinking more serious ‘than T am, she might, t might be best for us to understand the full station and i she fouls that this will be a block then I fel perhaps that would end the situation right there without tling hee. fel that perhaps 1am going to show this in diferent ways find she wll he unavwere of what the real station is and perhaps react back to me in a certain way spoiling oor dating and every. ‘thing ose like that. Tam ready for my sixth question. IE was to fallin love with this girl and want to make plans for marrige do you feel that its fair that T should ask her to change Ihe religion over to my belie? Tperenngecten: MY answer i no. sunyecr: Well, no. Well, this has me stymied. No. Well hom cstly eal that U have been brought up in a certain way and T belive that she has too, and I feel pretty strong about the way that I belive, Not that I am completely orthodox or anything, but of coure there is always family pressure and things like that. And Tam quite sure that she fel, unfortunately I have never seen a family with a spit in religion that really has been able to make sa success out of, So T'dont know. T think that peehaps T would bbe tempted to ask her to change. I dont think that T would be able to really, Iam ready for number seven Do you feel that it would bea beter situation if we were to get rmaried and neither one of us were willing to talk about the r= Iigious diferenc or to give in on etter one side, that we bring four children up in a neutral religion other than the to that we believe in? sapennectan: My answer i yes Sonyecr: Well pecbaps this would be a solution. f we could find a religion that would incorporate out two belies to a certain extent. I realize that perhaps this might be literally imposible to do. Peshape in a sense thie nevtrl religion might be something almost made up by ourselves beesse I honesty feel that religious ‘walning no matter which belief i if not cuted to extremes is seed, for everyone should have a certain amount of religions tran- ing slong these lines, Perhaps this might be a solution tothe prob- Tem, I guess I should fellow ths along 2 litle bit further and see exactly what happens. Iam ready for number eight If we were to get marred would it be be for us to lve in a new community where ove will not be in contact with our parents ff we were getting a lot of Family presse over religious erences? ErenDarsTeR: My answer is no. sonyecr: Wel, 1 kinda tend to agree with this answer. I feel ‘hat you wouldnt be accomplishing too such by naming away from the issue and that perhaps it would be one of those things in life that eventually yon would just be willing to accept stand that the families and we would got long harmoniously together. [At least I hope it would work ost if that station comes about. {think it would be bast for both families together that we are not soing to work it out if we run away from our problem. So we best remain there and try and work it out. Tam realy for number nine Tf we did get married and were to raise our children do’ you think chat we should explain and fell our children that we once Thad thie religions diference or would we just bring them vp in this new religion, that is their religion, that we talked about, and let them believe that that i what we orginally belived in? xpeuecreR: My answer i 20 Sunyecr: Once again I kinda agree with this. I dink they should be told because undoubtedly they will Bad out. And i they did find out that there was this dflerence that we once ed they would“ Wo erixoaroDoLoo" feel that we were sneaking or trying to hide something from thers and this would not be the best station either. So I believe this ‘would be the best sitation, Tam ready for number ten Do yon feel that our children, if there were any, would have any religious problems themselves because of us the parents and four dials? xmeuecren: My answer i 20, sonyecr: Well I really dont know if T agree with that or net. Perhaps they would have rouble if confusion set in and they were to feet thst they didnot know which i right and which is wrong ‘or what side to pick sf they didnot want to stick with their rei ‘lon. But I kinda fel that if thee religion was a wholesome one ‘hich supplied the needs of a religion and that which a religion foes supply that there would not be any problems with them. But [suppose that only time will tll if rich problems would come about. Tam fished with my comments now. xrentexTen: Okay, T will be right in. ‘The experimenter appeared in the room with the subject handed him a Hist of points that he might comment on, and lef the room. The subject commented as follows. sunyncr: Well the conversation seemed to be onesided because {was doing it all. But, I fel that it was extremely dificult for Mr. MeHlugh to answer these questions fully without having a com= plete understanding of the personalities of the diferent people favolved and exactly how involved the situation was ase. The answers I received I must say that the majonty of them were answered perhaps in the same way that I would answor them t9 rnyself knowing the diferences in types of people. One or two of them did come as surprise to me and I fet thatthe reason per haps he answered dhese questions the way he did i for the reason that he isnot aware of the personalities involved and how they are reacting or would react to a certuin situation. The answers that T revived were most of them I felt that he was for the most part ‘ware of the situation as we moved along in that Iwas interpreting Is anewers even though they were yes or 0 answers as flly meditating over these stations that I presented to him and they Inada lot of meaning to me.I fle that his answers asa whole ware Delpful and that he was looking out forthe bencft tothe station as for the most part and not to curtail it or cut i short in any means heard what T wanted to hear in most of the stations presented at the time, Peshape I didnot hear what I really wanted to hear but peas from an objective standpoint they wore the best answers because someone involved im a situation i blinded to a certain degree and cannot take tht objective viewpoint. And therefore these answers may difer from the person who Is involved in the situation and the person who is outside and can take an objective viewpoint. I honesty believe thatthe answers that he gave me, that he was completely aware ofthe station at hand. Perhaps 1 fuess that should be qualied. Perhaps when I said should T talk to Dad for instance he was not postive. When I sad should 1 talk to Dad for instance he was not positive what Twas going to talk to Dad about. In a full expacity, He knew the general topic bute ie not aware how close Tamm to Dad or how involved the conversation might get And f his saying “do tab” in knowing that Dad will not listen, well thi perhaps int best, or if Dad i very ‘willing to listen he says it may not help. Or doit talk. Well this ‘once again is bringing in personales which he is not aware of ‘The conversation and the answers given I balieve had a lot of meaning to me. I mean it was perhaps what I would have expected from someone who fully understood the situation. And I feel that {had a lot of sense to me and made a Tt of sense. Well [fel hat the questions that I asked were very pertinent and did help ia tnderstanding the stuation on both sides, that is myself and the tnswerer and my reaction tothe answers ike I have stated belore ‘were mostly in agreement. At times I was surprised but under ood that becuse he is nt flly aware of the situation and the personalities involved. case 2 svnyocr: 1 would lke to know whether or not 1 should change sy major atthe present time, Lhave a physics major with quite a debit in grade points to bring upto get my C average in physic would like to switch over to mathematics Lhave a ithe dif cay int, bot I think maybe I could handle i. Uhave fled several rmath courses here at UCLA, but I have always repeted themand had C's. have come close fo getting a B in math in one Specie course because I studied litle more than in others but ‘ay question i sll should I change my major? ‘exrmuntenten: My answer & no sonyecr: Well he says no. And if I dont then I will have to ‘make up my deficit in grade points which wil e awfully diffcalt ‘Because 1 am not doing too well thie semester If 1 pull through this semester with seven units of Athen I can count on possibly going ‘onto get my degree in physics in February, but then T have this ‘igma of nuclear physics facing me. 1 thoroughly dislike the study (of nuclear physics Nuclear Physics 124 willbe one of my required ‘courses to get a degree in physics. 'Do you think I could get a degree in physics on the basis of this ‘knowledge chat I must tako Physics 124° ‘meremneesrin: My answer is yes. tmyeor: He says yer 1 dont sce how I can. 1am not that good ‘of a theorist. My study habits are horble. My reading speod is ‘bad, and I dont spend enough tne in studying. Do you think that T could successfully improve my study habit? rxancren: My answer is yes. fnyecr: He says that Tcan succesfully improve my study hab- its. Thave been preached to all slong om how to study propedy, bat I dont study propery, I dont have sulfcient incentive to go ‘through physics or do 1? ‘Do you think T have salficient incentive to get 2 degree in physics? ‘exrennersin: My answer i yes. senycr: He says my’ answer i Yes. think possibly so if I didnt have a bad scholastic record behind me to follow me up. Tt would be awfully diiete to get that degree, ‘Do you think I could succesfully do my studying while uying to keep bappy relations st home with my wife and still get my work done? I don't do my studying well at school and T don't Ihave moch incentive to study when T am at home. But when my vie comes home, I ike to study. Yet this keeps us from doing Uhings, and whenever she dosent do things, It gets on my nerves Ibecause there i allthis work piling up. Do you think I could soe cesfully do my studying at home? vaosiunievten: MY answer imo svnyncr: He seys no, I dont think s either. Should 1 come to school every night after supper and do my studying? ‘peremnncren: My answer fs 90. sexyecr: He says I shouldait come to school and study. Where should I go? Should I go to the library on campus to do my studying? mnnecan: My answer it yet Sunyuer: He says I should goto the Ubrary to do my studying. Which library? They may not have all the rlerences there that may need but that i not abvays necessary. I need at last three ‘more questions, Do you think I can develop sufiently good study habits and incentive to actually achieve developing those habits such that I woukht have to stay up late at night and not get the ‘work done inthe fst place? Treaneren: My anwer #90. suayeer: He says no. T cant develop the study habits properly tobe able to pull mysolf through. If you dont think that Tak develop the proper study habits and carry them through to reach smy goal do you on the basis ofthis still belive that I can get @ Aexgee in physics? xrauMinvnen: My answer 8 m0, fengnor: According to that I won't get a degree. What should I Ao? Are you sill here? rxpeenren: Yes, I am, sepyecr: If you don't thiak 1 will make the. . .achiove the necessary goal of improving my study habits and geting a degree in physics do you recommend that I uit school? bxnennancren: My antwer is yes sunyucr: He says 1 should quit school. Are you sill here? xrennarren: Ye, sunyecr: T ave one more question. I would lke to get a com- ‘mision inthe Air Force. I have completed the Air Forco RO-T.G, teaning program but to get a commision I need a dogres. If I don't get the degree the chances are very strong that T-may not fot the commision although there are is and outs that there is Stil some possibility that T may still get « commission without « degree, although thi isnot desirable, The question i, will Tet & commision in the Air Force?‘pxremeewren: My answer 6 yes sunyect: He says Iwill get commision ta the Air Force and {hat what Tam looking forward to, ut will | ever get degnee? IFT get a commission without @ degre will [ever get a degree in anything? xrmuseren: My answer 6 90. sect: This leaves me somewhat unhappy although 1 don't really need a degree in the ype of work that I desire to do, Ate you there? Cone buck i, ‘The subject commented as follows ‘Wel as far as what I got from the conversation, iti eather fol- {sh for me to pursue my work any further os far a geting a dagree ln anything» Actually 1 have fle all slong that the type of work Tam interested in which ssaventing isnot something that requires 4 degree necessary. It requires a certain knowledge of math and physics but it doesnt require @ degree todo inventing. From the ‘onverstion I gather that I should Just quit school and go ahead and get my commission but how I dont know. But it would be awfully nice to have a degree, That degree would be abe to get tne into other schools. Otherwise T will have the statement that I ‘went through college but T never got out. Talo get the impres: son that my study habits will ever improve as much a8 I would Iike them to anyway. 1 wil not get a degree. I will get commit: sion and its fruitless for me to study either at home or at schol Especially in the evening. I wonder if 1 should do any studying at all, or iT should Team to do all my studying at echool. What to 4o Thave the feeling that my parents woold be very unhappy and also my wife’ parents would be very wahappy i 1 never dil get 1 degree or atleast especially right now. I have the feeling that this past conversation is basod on what one should have learned to do years ago, that is, a8 « growing child. To ask themselves questions and give himself an answer of some type, yes oF no, land to think out reasons why either yes or no holds or might hold find upon the validity or the antiipation of dhe validity of that !nwer what one should do accomplish his goal or just ext I per- Sonaly think Tcan do better in mith than Ian in physics, But 1 ‘wont know until the end ofthe summer » INDINGS ‘An examination ofthe protocols reveal the following [A Getting through the exchange None of the subjects had dificully in accomplishing the series of ten question, and in summarizing and evaluating the advice. B. Anners were perceived as “answersto-questons” 1 Typically the subjects heard the experimenters answers as anwereto-theiestions. Peroepvally, the experimenter’ answers ‘were motivated by the questions. 2 Subjects aw directly “what the adviser had in mind” They heard in a glance” what he was talling about, what be meant, tnd not what he hed uttore. 3. The typical subject assumed, over the course ofthe exchange and during the posterperimental interview, thatthe answers Wore advice (0 the problem, and that this advice as a solution to the problem was to be found via the answer 4, All reported the “advice that they bad been given” and ad rested their appreciation and ertesen to that “advice” ©. There were no preprogrammed questions; the next question ‘wus motivated by the retrampective-propectce possibilities of the resent stuaion that were altred by each octal exchange 1 No subject administered « preprogrammed set of questions. 2. Present answers altered the sense of previous exchanges 3. Over the course of the exchange the assumption seemed to ‘operate that there vas an answer to be obtained, and that if the fnswer was not abvious, that its meaning could be determined by active search, one part of which involved asking another question 0 as to find out what the adviser “bal in mind.” 4, Much efor was devoted to looking for meanings that were intended but were not evident frm the immediate answer tothe question. 5. The present answertothe question motivated the succeed ‘ng set of possbilities from among which the next question was70 Tunes im emonemenatoor selected. The next question emerged as a product of rections ‘upon the previous course ofthe conversation and the presupposed ‘underlying problem as the topic whose features each actual ex change documented and extended. The underlying ‘problem war claborated i its featares as a Function ofthe exchange. The sense Of the problem was progresvely accommodated to each present fncwer, while the answer motivated fresh aspects of the under ying problem. 6. The underlying pattern was elaborated end compounded ‘over the sees of exchanges and wat accommodated to each pres tent “answer” 20 as to maintain the “course of advice” to elaborate ‘what had “really been advised” previously, and to motivate the new porsbiltes as emerging features of the problem, 1 Anacers in search of questions 4. Over the course of the exchange, subjects sometimes started with the reply aban answer and slteed the previous sens oftheir ‘question t9 accommodate this t0 the reply as the answer to the retrospectively revised. question, 3 The identical utterance was capable of answering several Aferent questions simultaneously, and of constituting an answer toa compound question that in terms of the strict loge of propos tions did not permit either a yes or no or a single yes or no. 3. The same utterance was uted to anrwer several. diferent ‘questions separated in time, Subjects referred to this a8 “shedding ‘ew light” on the pus 4, Prost answers provided answers to further questions that vere never asked, E, Handling incomplete, inappropriate, and contradictory answers 1. Where answers were unsatisfying. or incomplete, the ques toners were willing to wat for later answers in order to decide the sense of the previous ones. 2 Incomplete answers were treated by subjects as incomplete because of the "deficiencies" of this method of giving advice. 3. Answers that were inappropriate were inappropriate for “a reason.” If he roason was found, dhe sense of the answer was there- ‘upon decided, If an anewer made “good sense” thie was likely to bbe what the answerer had “advised” o 4. When answers were incongruous or contradictory, subjects wore able to continue by finding that the “adviser” had learned Imore inthe meantime, or that he had decided to change his min, for that perhaps he was not suliciently acquainted wih the intr- faces of the problem, or the fault was in the question so that another phrasing was required, 5. Incongrious answers were resolved by imputing knowledge and intent t0 the adviser 6, Contradictores required that the subject clct the real ques: tion that the answer answered which they did by Furnishing the {question with additional meanings that 8 with the meanings “be- ind” what the adviser was advising. 7. In the case of contradictory answers much effort was devoted to reviewing the possible intent of the answer s0 as to rid the “answer of contradiction oF meannglessness, and tod the answerer of untrasworthiness 8, More subjects entertained the possibility of a trick than tested this possility. All suspicious subjects were reluctant to act under the belie that there was a trick involved. Suspicions were quieted if the adviser’ answers made “good sense” Suspicions were most ‘unlikely to continue if the answers accorded with the subject’ previous thought sbout the matter and with hs prefered decisions. 8. Suspicions transformed the answer Into an event of “mere speech” having the appearance of coincidental occurrence with the occasion of the questoners question. Subjects found this struc ture diffeit to matotain and manage. Many subjects saw the sense (of the answer “anyway.” 10. Those who became suspicious, simultanoouly, though tem- porary, withdrew their willingness to continue , "Search" for and perception of pattern 1, Throughout there was » concer and search for patter. Pat ter, however, was pereived from the very beginning Pattern was Lkely to be soon in the fst evidence of the “advice.” 2, Subjects found st very dicult to grasp the implications of randomness in the utterances, A predetermined utterance was treated at deceit im the answers instead of as an utterance that was decided beforchand and that cccurred independently of the abject questions and interests.a oie i emouerHoooLeor 3, When the possibility of deception occurred to the subject, the advisers utterance documented the pattem of the deceit in stead of the pattem of advice. Thos the relationship of the utter tance to the underlying pattem as ite document remained un changed, G. Annwers were asigned a sceni source 1. Subjects assigned to the adviser as his advice the thought formulated in the subject's questions. For example, when « rub ject asked, “Should 1 come to school every night after supper to do ny studying?” and the experimenter sid, "My answer sno," the subject in his comments said, “He sald T shouldn't come to school and study.” This was very common, 2. AI subjects were surprised to fd that they contebuted $0 actively and 50 heavily to the “advice that they had received from the adviser” 3. Upon being told about the deoeption the subjects were in tensely chagened. In most cases they revised thei opinions shout ‘the procedure to emphasize its inadequacies for the experimenter purposes (which they understood stil to be an exploration of means of giving advice) H. The vagueness of every present situation of further posites reimained inariant tothe clacton furished by the exchanges Of questions and answers, 1. There was vagueness (a) inthe status ofthe uterance as an answer, (b) in ite status as an answer-tosthe-question, (e) ie status as a document of advice with respect to the underlying patter, and (d) in the underlying problem. While, aftr th course of an exchange, the utterances furnished “advice about the problem,” their function of advice also saborsted the entire Scheme of problematic possbilites so that the overall elfct wat that of a transformation of the subject's situation in which the vagueness horns rene ong nd “Probie remained unanswered.” 1. In ther capacity ax members, subjects consulted institutional feed foatures ofthe collectivity a @ scheme of interpretation 1, Subject ade specif reference to varius social structures in deciding the sensible znd warranted character ofthe advisers ad vice. Such references, however, were ot made to any social struc tures whatever. In the eyes of the subject, ifthe adviser was to now and demonstrate tothe subject that e knew what he was talking about, and if the subject was to consider seriously the ad viser's descriptions of his circumstances ak grounds ofthe subject’ further thoughts and management of Use czcumstances, the sub- Ject did not permit the adviser, nor was the subject willing to enter. tain, an model ofthe social structures. References tht the subjoc ‘supplied were to social structures which he treated as actually oF potentially known in common with the adviser. And then, not (0 fn social structures known in common, but to normaticly valued Socal structures which the subject accepted as conditions that his decisions, with respec to his own sensble and realistic grasp of his tireumstances and the “good” character of the advisors advice, had to siti. These social structures consisted of normative fer tures of the social system scen from within which, forthe subject, were definitive of lis memberships inthe various collecivities that were refereed to. 2. Subjects gave litle indication, prior to the oceasons of use of the rules for deciding fact and nonfact, what the defaitve Dormative strictures were to which ther interpretations would Ina reference. The rules for documenting these definitive norma tive orders seemed to come ito play only after a set of normative features had been motivated as relevant to is laterpreive tasks, tnd then as &Guncton of the fat thatthe activities of interpreta. ton were under way. 3. Subjects presupposed known.n-common features of the co lectvity asa body of common sense knowledge subscribed to by both. They drew upon these presupposed pattems in assigning to what they heard the adviser talking about, ats status of docu mentary evidence of the definitive normative features of the co loctivty settings of the experiment, family, school, home, occupa tion, to which the subject’ interests were direceed. These evidenoes and the collectivity features were referred back and forth to each other, with each elaborating and being thereby elaborated iis possibilities. I. Deciding warrant was identical with assigning the adcice its perceiedly normal sense. ‘Through retrospective prospective review, subjects justified* [UDI 1 erionTHoDOIoar the “reasonable” sonse and sanctioable status of the advice as sounds for managing their allas. Ils “reasonable” character com Sisted of its compatibility with normative orders of social struc- tures presumed t© be subsorbed to and known between subject and adviser. The subject's task of deciding the warranted charse- ter of what was belng advised wa identical with the tsk of essign- ing to what the adviser proposed (1) tr statue as an instance of 1 clase of events, (2) I lkelihood of occurence, (3) it cin prabilty with past and future events; (4) the conditions of sts fceurrence; (5) its place in s set of mesnsends relationships: and (8) 8 necessity according to a natural (42, moral) order The subjects assigned these values of typically, kelhood, compara: bility, causal texture, technial efeacy, and. moral requiedaess while using the instttionalized features of the collectivity as a Scheme of interpretation, Thus, the subjec's task of deciding whether or not what the adviser advised was “ue” was identical with the task of assigning to what the adviser proposed te per- evedly normal vies K, Perccivedly normal values were not so much “assigned” as ‘managed. ‘Through the work of documenting-te., by searching for and determining patter, by treating the advisers answers as moti ‘ted by the intended sense of the question, by waiting for later answers to clarity the sense of previous ones by finding answers {o unasked questons-the perceivedly normal values of what was being advised. were established, tested, reviewed, retained, re stored; in a word, managed, It is misleading, therefore, to think of the documentary method as a procedure whereby propositions are accorded membership in ascent corpus Rather the docu. mentary method developed the advice so as to be continually “membershipping” Examples in sociological inquiry Examples of the use of the documentary method can be cited from every area of sociological investigation® Ts ebvious applice- $CL Fai Kanan, Mahedloy ofthe Soil Scie (New Yok: Or ‘ond Univer Tey 104), peal pr 33-38 “tn hs aie "On the fteprtaon of Wetanechaaung” Manabi tion occurs in community studies where warrant is assigned to Statements by the exiteria of “comprehensive desription” ad “rng OF truth” It use x found also on the many occasions of survey esearch when the researcher, in reviewing his interview notes ot Im editing the answers to a questionnaire, has to decide “what the respondent had in mind.” When s researcher addressed to the jpotivated character” of an action, ora theory, oF @ person's com- pllance toa legitimate order and the ik, be wll use what he has fctully observed to. “document” an “underlying. patter.” The ‘documentary method is used to epitomize the object. For example, just as the lay person may say of something that “Hany” says, Tavt that just ke Harry” the investigator may use some observed feature ofthe thing he f referring to as a characterizing indicator of the intended matter. Complex scenes like industrial estblish- tents, communities, or socal movements are frequently deserbed ‘with the aid of excerpts” from protocols and numerical tables ‘which are used to epitomize the intended events. The documentary Inethod is used whenever the investigator constructs a life history ‘natural hitory” The tak of hstoriizing the person's biog rDhy consts of using the dacumentary method to select and frler past occurrences s0 as to furnish the present state of affairs fs relevant past and prospects ‘The use ofthe doctmentary method is not confined to cases of “oft” procedures and "partial descriptions” Te occurs as well in ‘cases of rigorous procedures whore descriptions are intended to ‘hus a deiite Bld of posible observables. In reading a journal fecount for the purpose’ of Iteral replication, researchers who tempt to reconstract the relationship between the reported pr fedures and the results frequently encounter a gap of insuiient Information. The gap occurs when the reader asks how the in vestigitor decided the comespondence between what was actually ‘observed and the intended event for which the actual observation {s treated as its evidence. The reader's problem consists of having ‘Tpeed Gat he dicen metiod pear t epoca scence. The ‘En th ad ee uy termina wap of fering vibe feat of ten” mee opted of no rath of ttn “ikepetve metal “close etapa to dete” sod op Atay cage to ety someting ald actetns slay” nyle cace tthe cemetary hod te Tor ssomsterig and warmatng ndnge.