Running Together: Some Ethnomethodological Considerations by J. A. Collinson
Running-Together: Some Ethnomethodological Considerations
Jacquelyn Allen Collinson
Jacquelyn Allen Collinson
Abstract
There is a degree of irony in the fact that in activities as thoroughly embodied as sport and exercise, there is relatively little phenomenological and particularly ethnomethodological analysis of members’ subjective experiences of accomplishing these practical activities. This paper aims to address this lacuna in a modest way, by analysing one particular sporting activity, distance running, and more specifically, ‘running-together’ as a joint accomplishment. Based upon data generated from a collective autoethnographic research project on distance running, the paper seeks to combine the autoethnographic approach with the insights of phenomenology and specifically, ethnomethodology, in order to examine the production of running- together, and thereby to ‘mark’ this particular mundane activity.
Introduction
There is a degree of irony in the fact that in activities as thoroughly embodied as sport and exercise, there is relatively little written on the phenomenology of participants’ actual experiences of ‘doing’ these activities. In a recent extensive review of the literature, Kerry and Armour (2000) found only six published articles which might be considered phenomenologically-orientated, and which were located within the sociology of sport (see: Pronger, 1990; Rail, 1990, 1992; Woods, 1992; Smith, 1992; Wessinger, 1994). This paper seeks to add to that small literature and represents an attempt to analyse a specific sporting activity, distance running, or more precisely ‘running-together’, as an
There is a degree of irony in the fact that in activities as thoroughly embodied as sport and exercise, there is relatively little phenomenological and particularly ethnomethodological analysis of members’ subjective experiences of accomplishing these practical activities. This paper aims to address this lacuna in a modest way, by analysing one particular sporting activity, distance running, and more specifically, ‘running-together’ as a joint accomplishment. Based upon data generated from a collective autoethnographic research project on distance running, the paper seeks to combine the autoethnographic approach with the insights of phenomenology and specifically, ethnomethodology, in order to examine the production of running- together, and thereby to ‘mark’ this particular mundane activity.
Introduction
There is a degree of irony in the fact that in activities as thoroughly embodied as sport and exercise, there is relatively little written on the phenomenology of participants’ actual experiences of ‘doing’ these activities. In a recent extensive review of the literature, Kerry and Armour (2000) found only six published articles which might be considered phenomenologically-orientated, and which were located within the sociology of sport (see: Pronger, 1990; Rail, 1990, 1992; Woods, 1992; Smith, 1992; Wessinger, 1994). This paper seeks to add to that small literature and represents an attempt to analyse a specific sporting activity, distance running, or more precisely ‘running-together’, as an
‘interactionally co-ordinated and locally
accomplished form of social action’
(Coates, 1999: 14). As Brekhus (1998:
36) has noted in relation to social
research in general: ‘The unmarked
generally remains unnamed and
unaccented ...’. Based upon data
generated from a collective
autoethnographic research project on
distance running, this paper seeks to
combine the autoethnographic approach
with the insights of phenomenology and
specifically, ethnomethodology, in
order to examine the accomplishment of
running-together, and thereby to ‘mark’
this particular mundane activity.
The particular phenomenological perspective which is employed derives primarily from the work of Alfred Schutz (1967), elements of which focus upon the ways in which individuals construct and manage routine social life using a ‘stock of knowledge at hand’, constituted of layers or sedimentations of previous experience, permitting them to make sense of particular contexts. The great epistemological problem for Schutz was discovering how such common-sense understanding is possible. In his formulation, common- sense knowledge is constituted of typfications which are linked to practical activities; typifications being the common-sense constructs which individuals use to order the social world on a moment-to-moment basis, and which: ‘organize our impressions, at the start, into objects, events, and categories and so structure our experience’ (Benson & Hughes, 1 9 8 3 : 5 3 ) . S u c h t yp i f i c a t i o n s a r e generally taken for granted in the normal, everyday scheme of things; for the most part they are tacitly held and
The particular phenomenological perspective which is employed derives primarily from the work of Alfred Schutz (1967), elements of which focus upon the ways in which individuals construct and manage routine social life using a ‘stock of knowledge at hand’, constituted of layers or sedimentations of previous experience, permitting them to make sense of particular contexts. The great epistemological problem for Schutz was discovering how such common-sense understanding is possible. In his formulation, common- sense knowledge is constituted of typfications which are linked to practical activities; typifications being the common-sense constructs which individuals use to order the social world on a moment-to-moment basis, and which: ‘organize our impressions, at the start, into objects, events, and categories and so structure our experience’ (Benson & Hughes, 1 9 8 3 : 5 3 ) . S u c h t yp i f i c a t i o n s a r e generally taken for granted in the normal, everyday scheme of things; for the most part they are tacitly held and
17
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
operationalised, and ‘marking’ them for
dénouement is one of the challenges
facing researchers within this tradition.
Subsequently, applying Schutzian insights to his own study of eveyday life and more specifically to the study of members’ methods for producing everyday social order, Harold Garfinkel (1967) instigated ethnomethodology, the pioneering study of ‘the procedures members use to do “going about knowing the world“’ (Benson & Hughes, 1983: 56) As Mehan & Wood (1975: 3) have noted, ethnomethodology has been identified variously with a methodological style, a body of findings, a theory and sometimes a world view, and perhaps its power lies in linking all these. Seeking to analyse in detail the precise ways in which social order is constructed and maintained at the micro-level of social interaction, ethnomethodology demands the close empirical examination of the ‘detailed and observable practices which make up the incarnate production of ordinary social facts’ (Lynch et al, 1983). Garfinkel’s work has subsequently been developed by writers within a tradition which Kew (1986: 308) has termed ‘ethnomethodological ethnography’, with a focus upon the ‘accounting’ practices which actors use to manage social order; accountable in that they are observable and reportable (Sharrock & Anderson, 1986: 56). It is primarily with some of the concerns of ethnomethodological ethno- graphy or more accurately in this case,
Subsequently, applying Schutzian insights to his own study of eveyday life and more specifically to the study of members’ methods for producing everyday social order, Harold Garfinkel (1967) instigated ethnomethodology, the pioneering study of ‘the procedures members use to do “going about knowing the world“’ (Benson & Hughes, 1983: 56) As Mehan & Wood (1975: 3) have noted, ethnomethodology has been identified variously with a methodological style, a body of findings, a theory and sometimes a world view, and perhaps its power lies in linking all these. Seeking to analyse in detail the precise ways in which social order is constructed and maintained at the micro-level of social interaction, ethnomethodology demands the close empirical examination of the ‘detailed and observable practices which make up the incarnate production of ordinary social facts’ (Lynch et al, 1983). Garfinkel’s work has subsequently been developed by writers within a tradition which Kew (1986: 308) has termed ‘ethnomethodological ethnography’, with a focus upon the ‘accounting’ practices which actors use to manage social order; accountable in that they are observable and reportable (Sharrock & Anderson, 1986: 56). It is primarily with some of the concerns of ethnomethodological ethno- graphy or more accurately in this case,
upon sporting or other physical
activities such as walking (for these, see
for example: Ryave & Schenkein, 1975;
Sudnow, 1978; Goode, 1994; Coates,
1999; Robillard, 1999). The following
account therefore attempts to contribute
to this literature and is based upon data
derived from a collective
autoethnographic research project,
details of which are given below. The
object of analysis is the performance of
routine training runs, and more
specifically, the ways in which two
runners accomplish or ‘do’ co-running,
o r ‘ r u n n i n g - t o g e t he r ’ , f o r t he
accomplishment of activities such as
walking and running relies upon an
elaborated collection of methodic
practices (cf Ryave & Schenkein, 1975;
Bueno, 2002). As Weeks has noted in
relation to musical coordination in his
case, the essential interest of the paper
is in: ‘members’ methods for
maintaining as well as restoring
synchrony’ (1996: 201; emphasis in
original). Maintaining and restoring
running-together, as doing walking-
together, seems such a mundane,
unremarkable and unremarked activity
as to be entirely appropriate for
subjection to ethnomethodological
analysis. First, a brief description of the
research approach will help situate the
study.
The auto ethnographic approach
As indicated, the research approach e m p l o ye d i n t h e s t u d y w a s autoethnographic. In recent decades, autoethnography has gained more widespread usage and acceptance within the sociological and anthropological communities (see for example: Hayano, 1979; Ellis, 1997; Hayano, 1982; Reed-Danahay, 1997; Okley & Callaway, 1992; Van Maanen, 1995; Coffey, 1999; Sparkes, 2000),
The auto ethnographic approach
As indicated, the research approach e m p l o ye d i n t h e s t u d y w a s autoethnographic. In recent decades, autoethnography has gained more widespread usage and acceptance within the sociological and anthropological communities (see for example: Hayano, 1979; Ellis, 1997; Hayano, 1982; Reed-Danahay, 1997; Okley & Callaway, 1992; Van Maanen, 1995; Coffey, 1999; Sparkes, 2000),
ethnomethodological
that this paper engages.
auto-ethnography,
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
At the time of writing, with some notable
exceptions (see for example, Kew, 1986;
Coates, 1999) there is little developed
ethnomethodolgical literature relating
directly to sport. Indeed, ethnomethod-
ological analysis has only rarely focussed
18
with David Hayano typically being
credited with coining the term. It is not,
however, without its critics, and is still
deemed a contentious research approach
in many quarters. Debate continues about
the appropriateness of the terminology,
and a whole panoply of other terms co-
exists, for example, self-narratives, récits
de soi/moi, personal narratives,
ethnographic autobiography (see Ellis &
Bochner, 2000: 739 for a comprehensive
listing). Defined as an autobiographical
genre of research and writing (Ellis &
Bochner, 2000: 739), autoethnography
focusses upon the dialectics of
subjectivity and culture and in general
entails the detailed analysis of oneself
qua member of a social group or category,
for example as an Olympic rower (Tsang,
2000), or in this particular case, as a
distance runner (Allen Collinson &
Hockey, 2001; Denison, 2002; Allen
Collinson, 2003). It is usually
distinguished from autobiography by its
particular forms of analysis and writing
and its emphasis on experiences within
the writer’s life which aim to illuminate
wider cultural or subcultural aspects. The
distinctiveness of autoethnography as an
investigative process lies in its efforts to
combine detailed fieldnotes analysing the
research field, with ‘headnotes’ (Sanjek,
1990), the researcher’ s experience of
engaging with the phenomena under
study. The self and the ethnographic field
are then symbiotic, and in effect this
combination forms the pivot of analysis
(Coffey, 1999).
Autoethnographers have sought to ‘write themselves in’ to their accounts of fieldwork (Tedlock, 1991), in a rigorous, analytic fashion, and by so doing are engaged in writing about aspects of their identities (Coffey, 1999) as an integral part of the research process. Some ethnographic researchers in sport, exercise and dance, for example, have
Autoethnographers have sought to ‘write themselves in’ to their accounts of fieldwork (Tedlock, 1991), in a rigorous, analytic fashion, and by so doing are engaged in writing about aspects of their identities (Coffey, 1999) as an integral part of the research process. Some ethnographic researchers in sport, exercise and dance, for example, have
seized upon this challenging
development and begun to utlise their
own embodied sporting experiences to
produce a range of detailed
autoethnographies or ‘narratives of the
self’ (Sparkes, 2000) relating to various
sporting and physical activities, and
also to sports injuries and other health
problems (see for example: Tiihonen,
1994; Rinehart, 1995; Sparkes, 1996,
2003; Fernandez-Balboa, 1998;
Denison, 1999; Silvennoinen, 1999a,
1999b; Sudwell, 1999; Duncan, 2000;
Allen Collinson & Hockey, 2001).
Accountable knowledge
At this juncture, in congruence with the spirit of the autoethnographic enterprise, it is necessary to render visible some relevant ‘accountable knowledge’ (Stanley, 1990), in order to explain my own interest and involvement in the particular autoethnographic research project. In this context, in common with Granskog (2003, p 48), my definition of self has three critical components, in my own case: being a woman, a distance runner and a feminist sociologist. In brief, I have an athletic biography of distance running and racing which has required a commitment to training 6 or 7 days a week, sometimes twice a day, for 17 years. My (male) running partner with whom I have trained on a regular basis for 16 years, has 36 years of distance- running experience. Now technically deemed ‘veteran’ runners, our involvement in the activity mirrors Stebbins’ (2001) concept of ‘serious leisu re’ , and requ ires considerable personal effort, knowledge and training. Although we do not undertake all our training together, the vast majority of our aerobic work is done jointly, whilst we tend to do the anaerobic component of our training separately.
Accountable knowledge
At this juncture, in congruence with the spirit of the autoethnographic enterprise, it is necessary to render visible some relevant ‘accountable knowledge’ (Stanley, 1990), in order to explain my own interest and involvement in the particular autoethnographic research project. In this context, in common with Granskog (2003, p 48), my definition of self has three critical components, in my own case: being a woman, a distance runner and a feminist sociologist. In brief, I have an athletic biography of distance running and racing which has required a commitment to training 6 or 7 days a week, sometimes twice a day, for 17 years. My (male) running partner with whom I have trained on a regular basis for 16 years, has 36 years of distance- running experience. Now technically deemed ‘veteran’ runners, our involvement in the activity mirrors Stebbins’ (2001) concept of ‘serious leisu re’ , and requ ires considerable personal effort, knowledge and training. Although we do not undertake all our training together, the vast majority of our aerobic work is done jointly, whilst we tend to do the anaerobic component of our training separately.
19
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
By one of those strange coincidences
some years ago we both suffered severe
running injuries during the same week of
winter training, and a few days later
arrived at a collective decision
systematically to document our responses
to the injuries and our subsequent
rehabilitation, the principal motive being
to achieve something positive out of a
highly negative experience. In this sense,
it was one of those unhappy accidents of
current biography which provided access,
physical and psychological, to the
research setting (Lofland & Lofland,
1985: 11) and stimulated our interest in
autoethnography as a methodological
approach. The injury and subsequent
rehabilitative process took just over two
years, during which time data collection
took place, as detailed below. During our
attempts at rehabilitation, and through the
systematic analysis of our data, certain
questions of an ethnomethodological
order began to occur to us both,
stimulated by the fact that we were
obliged to re-learn how to run and this re-
learning brought into sharp relief the
complexities of accomplishing running.
These questions concerned, for example,
the stock of knowledge at hand upon
which we draw, how we actually perceive
and traverse our running routes, and
above all, how we manage the complex
achievement of running-together. The
focus of this paper falls upon this latter
issue: the ways in which we accomplish
the co-production of running-together.
Prior to proceeding to an examination of
our members’ practices, a brief
description of the research method will be
given.
The research method
In terms of method, each of the participants constructed a personal log, and a third collective log synthesised the salient common themes which were emerging, together with any differences in
The research method
In terms of method, each of the participants constructed a personal log, and a third collective log synthesised the salient common themes which were emerging, together with any differences in
our individual adaptation to and
management of the injured state. The
recording of our experiences was done
via micro-tape recorders which
accompanied us during daily training
and rehabilitation, and also at other
appropriate times. As ‘veteran’
runners, we were relatively confident of
fulfilling Garfinkel’ s ‘unique adequacy
requirement’ that:
... for the analyst to recognize, or identify, or follow the development of, or describe phenomena of order in local production of coherent detail the analyst must be vulgarly competent to the local production and reflexively natural accountability of the phenomenon or order he (sic) is “studying“. (2002: 175) (italics in original)
As veteran runners, we considered ourselves sufficiently technically competent in the activity of running to be able to experience and understand the phenomenon as ‘insider members’. In alignment with Weeks’ analysis of achieving musical co-ordination, I would contend that it is essential to have ‘insider knowledge in order to recover just what members are doing’ (1996: 199) when accomplishing running co-ordination. In contrast to other ethnomethodological studies of physical activities, we did not attempt the videotaping of our running, preferring instead to rely upon the daily, detailed recording of our experience of the phenomenon, both via tape- recorders and extensive fieldnotes. Tape recordings were transcribed as soon as practicable after the event. Creating the collective log, within which analytical themes and concepts were generated, was effected via a method somewhat akin to the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), although to a much less formalised degree.
As indicated, the focus of this paper is
... for the analyst to recognize, or identify, or follow the development of, or describe phenomena of order in local production of coherent detail the analyst must be vulgarly competent to the local production and reflexively natural accountability of the phenomenon or order he (sic) is “studying“. (2002: 175) (italics in original)
As veteran runners, we considered ourselves sufficiently technically competent in the activity of running to be able to experience and understand the phenomenon as ‘insider members’. In alignment with Weeks’ analysis of achieving musical co-ordination, I would contend that it is essential to have ‘insider knowledge in order to recover just what members are doing’ (1996: 199) when accomplishing running co-ordination. In contrast to other ethnomethodological studies of physical activities, we did not attempt the videotaping of our running, preferring instead to rely upon the daily, detailed recording of our experience of the phenomenon, both via tape- recorders and extensive fieldnotes. Tape recordings were transcribed as soon as practicable after the event. Creating the collective log, within which analytical themes and concepts were generated, was effected via a method somewhat akin to the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), although to a much less formalised degree.
As indicated, the focus of this paper is
20
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
an examination of the ways in which
running-together is accomplished, and
represents an attempt to provide some
insight into the methods for ‘producing
the distinctive orderliness of this activity’
(Weeks, 1996: 205), as a co-production.
As it is not within the scope of the paper
to provide a full portrayal of the many
ways in which running-together is ‘done’
certain specific facets have been selected
for examination, and the paper should
therefore be regarded as an indicative,
exploratory study rather than a
comprehensive, ‘fleshed out’ account.
Running-together: a co-production
Accomplishing running-together in training usually involves running in close proximity to one’s training partner or partners, in my own case this being primarily a male training partner. The paper seeks to delineate some of the methods we employ for the accomplishment of running-together as distinct from running alone. As Ryave & Schenkein (1975: 269) note, members are involved in a double task of both a) production work - in this case our production of running-together; and b) recognition work on the part of observers. I would also include myself and my partner as being involved in such recognition work; observing and recognizing ourselves as doing running- together. It is, however, primarily the intricacies of production work which this account aims to portray. First, I will examine the notion of proximity as a key component of running-together.
Proximity and pace
As has been noted in relation to pedestrian activity, the production of walking- together involves the participants in at least maintaining spatial proximity in some recognizable pattern (Ryave & Schenkein, 1975: 271), and requires some
Running-together: a co-production
Accomplishing running-together in training usually involves running in close proximity to one’s training partner or partners, in my own case this being primarily a male training partner. The paper seeks to delineate some of the methods we employ for the accomplishment of running-together as distinct from running alone. As Ryave & Schenkein (1975: 269) note, members are involved in a double task of both a) production work - in this case our production of running-together; and b) recognition work on the part of observers. I would also include myself and my partner as being involved in such recognition work; observing and recognizing ourselves as doing running- together. It is, however, primarily the intricacies of production work which this account aims to portray. First, I will examine the notion of proximity as a key component of running-together.
Proximity and pace
As has been noted in relation to pedestrian activity, the production of walking- together involves the participants in at least maintaining spatial proximity in some recognizable pattern (Ryave & Schenkein, 1975: 271), and requires some
degree of physical co-presence. Co-
presence can certainly be seen as a
necessary, but not sufficient criterion
for running-together. Its insufficiency
or inadequacy is evidenced by the fact
that people in each other’ s co-presence
are not necessarily perceived or
perceive themselves as socially
‘together’, or, as Ryave & Schenkein
(1975: 270) neatly term it, ‘identifiable
as a proper togethering’. For example,
two individuals may be sitting in very
close promiximity, even in physical
contact, on a train or other form of
public transport, but their togetherness
is primarily accidental and incidental in
that they find themselves in close
proximity by chance, not design, and
also attribute no real social significance
to their co-presence.
Accomplishing running-together shares many of the characteristics of achieving walking-together in terms of its being recognisable on the basis of various observational cues, an important one being spatial proximity, as indicated, but also including visual cues such as conversing, physical contact, uniformity of direction and pace. In particular, running-together requires of participants considerable effort and attention to the maintenance of approximately the same pace in order not to lose too great a degree of proximity, which might lead to a state of running-alone. Accomplishing running at more or less the same pace represents, however, quite a challenge, given that the co-runners are highly unlikely to run at the same pace ‘naturally’, that is left to set their own pace independent of the other. In the case of my male training partner and I, having trained together on a regular basis for over 16 years, we have become very practised at judging and
Accomplishing running-together shares many of the characteristics of achieving walking-together in terms of its being recognisable on the basis of various observational cues, an important one being spatial proximity, as indicated, but also including visual cues such as conversing, physical contact, uniformity of direction and pace. In particular, running-together requires of participants considerable effort and attention to the maintenance of approximately the same pace in order not to lose too great a degree of proximity, which might lead to a state of running-alone. Accomplishing running at more or less the same pace represents, however, quite a challenge, given that the co-runners are highly unlikely to run at the same pace ‘naturally’, that is left to set their own pace independent of the other. In the case of my male training partner and I, having trained together on a regular basis for over 16 years, we have become very practised at judging and
21
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
achieving a mutually acceptable pace.
This we arrive at by using a series of
indicators of each other’s current state of
running-being, and some of these cues,
both visual and aural will now be
examined. First, some key aural cues
will be considered.
Pacing cues
Aural indicators
Various aural cues are utilised to judge the appropriate pace to produce running- together at any given point on the running route. A primary aural cue used to assess one another’s current state of ‘going’ (a term which runners use to describe both the terrain upon which they are moving, and also their own and others’ performance), is that of breathing rate and style, by which I mean the rapidity, depth and general noise characteristics of breathing. As I suffer from mild exercise- induced asthma, my partner has over the years become particularly attuned to the importance of breathing cues as indicators of whether I am running with relative ease and fluidity, or conversely, struggling to maintain the pace. Breathing difficulties may arise either through general fatigue or because of specific air conditions such as high concentrations of vehicle pollution. I also attend to his breathing patterns, and we both tend to reduce our individual pace if receiving signals that the other is breathing more heavily than usual, always taking into account contextual factors such as the demands of the terrain being covered (for example, running up an incline, or over a muddy, ploughed field) which might also produce a quickening or deepening of breath. Steady, even breathing is, conversely, employed as an indicator that a partner is running well, as is holding a conversation without any indication of breathlessness.
Other aural cues such as conversational forms are used in order to assist in estab-
Pacing cues
Aural indicators
Various aural cues are utilised to judge the appropriate pace to produce running- together at any given point on the running route. A primary aural cue used to assess one another’s current state of ‘going’ (a term which runners use to describe both the terrain upon which they are moving, and also their own and others’ performance), is that of breathing rate and style, by which I mean the rapidity, depth and general noise characteristics of breathing. As I suffer from mild exercise- induced asthma, my partner has over the years become particularly attuned to the importance of breathing cues as indicators of whether I am running with relative ease and fluidity, or conversely, struggling to maintain the pace. Breathing difficulties may arise either through general fatigue or because of specific air conditions such as high concentrations of vehicle pollution. I also attend to his breathing patterns, and we both tend to reduce our individual pace if receiving signals that the other is breathing more heavily than usual, always taking into account contextual factors such as the demands of the terrain being covered (for example, running up an incline, or over a muddy, ploughed field) which might also produce a quickening or deepening of breath. Steady, even breathing is, conversely, employed as an indicator that a partner is running well, as is holding a conversation without any indication of breathlessness.
Other aural cues such as conversational forms are used in order to assist in estab-
lishing and maintaining running
synchrony. Conversational pointers
may be direct questions or utterances to
our partner either to elicit information
about the other’ s general state of
running-being or to describe one’ s own
self-feelings. Some of these utterances
take on a ritual aspect in that the same
or a very similar expression is used
repeatedly. Both of us, for example, are
known to articulate the following
statement on a regular basis: ‘Well, the
old body doesn’t want to go
today/tonight/this evening’, normally at
the start of a training run, thus
indicating that the run is unlikely to be a
relatively effortless outing, and that the
other partner should bear in mind that
the speaker is definitely not on ‘top
form’. Cursing and swearing by my
partner can also provide a colourful
verbal indicator of whether he is
performing the run with some difficulty,
and I have become relatively practised
at judging form by the rate at which
swear words erupt into the
conversation. Not all sound cues take
the form of words, however: grunting,
groaning, sighing and other non-verbal
cues may provide indications which are
equally as precise as worded statements
in conveying feelings. As an
addendum, in relation to aural cues,
during the autumn months the sound of
footfall upon fallen leaves also provides
audible feedback as to the proximity
and pace of one’s training partner.
Visual checks
In relation to visual cues, both of us regularly use ‘the glance’ throughout the training run to check and monitor various indications of the other’ s running form. In an interesting paper, Sudnow (1972) has noted the seriousness and efficacy of the glance, especially in contexts where only glances are possible or permissible.
Visual checks
In relation to visual cues, both of us regularly use ‘the glance’ throughout the training run to check and monitor various indications of the other’ s running form. In an interesting paper, Sudnow (1972) has noted the seriousness and efficacy of the glance, especially in contexts where only glances are possible or permissible.
22
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
During running, more extended visual
checking, such as looking or staring, is
not generally possible due to the need to
keep one’ s eyes primarily focussed upon
the terrain of the foreground in order to
anticipate foot placement, the best line to
take, and so on. Quick glances, however,
are efficient means of gauging facial
expression, for example, as a good
indicator of the other’ s subjective
experience of the run. Grimaces,
frowning, tense jawline, sunken eyes, all
provide testimony to a state of running not
characterised by ease. This may provide
the observer with advance notice to slow
her or his pace either imminently or,
depending upon the particular facial
expression, at a subsequent point in the
training run. Body expressions are
checked and monitored in an analogous
fashion. So, for example, we use factors
such as the angle of the upper body,
tenseness of neck, shoulders and/or arms,
stride length, inter alia, to judge the going
of our partner. Stumbling, tripping over,
rolling the head, moving the upper body
laterally more than usual, dragging the
feet, and generally looking ‘ragged’ ,
would also signal that the other is
struggling to some degree and may
require her/his partner to reduce the pace
in order to achieve a mutually appropriate
tempo.
All this monitoring activity of course requires a good deal of prior knowledge of, and familiarity with the other’s routine facial and corporeal expressions. In addition to using each other’s physical presence to gauge and monitor proximity and pace, when weather and lighting conditions permit we also use the other’s shadow in a similar fashion. Even if the other is not within the visual field, her or his shadow can be used to estimate proximity. These, then, are some of the visual and aural cues we employ to assist regulate our individual running pace in order to achieve running-together. The
All this monitoring activity of course requires a good deal of prior knowledge of, and familiarity with the other’s routine facial and corporeal expressions. In addition to using each other’s physical presence to gauge and monitor proximity and pace, when weather and lighting conditions permit we also use the other’s shadow in a similar fashion. Even if the other is not within the visual field, her or his shadow can be used to estimate proximity. These, then, are some of the visual and aural cues we employ to assist regulate our individual running pace in order to achieve running-together. The
ways in which we decide on trajectory
and who will act as ‘leadperson’ at
given points of the run will now be
considered.
Taking a line and a lead
It is interesting to consider precisely how we navigate the route together in terms of selecting a trajectory from the myriad of different possible ‘paths’ (Wolff, 1973) or ‘lines’ over any particular piece of ground. Given the scope of the paper, I shall, however, confine myself to an analysis of convergence and divergence points; the former being points on the run where our paths, geographical and temporal, converge.
As Weeks (1996) has noted in relation to achieving synchrony in musical performance, each performer must take into account the other’s actions, and this ‘practical reflexivity’ requires mutual interpretation and anticipation. An analogous reflexivity is required in running-together. Onrouteswithahigh degree of familiarity to both partners, this is rendered easier by the fact that we are both familiar with not only our own preferred trajectory or line over particular terrain, but also with the other person’ s chosen line. So for example, when crossing a certain section of open parkland on a slight incline, I typically take the upper ground whilst my partner opts for the flatter stretch. As we approach this section of the route, both of us diverge slightly in preparation for taking separate lines. Over many runs, we have both come to recognise and anticipate the divergence point. Over this section, we typically run at about 3 metres’ distance from each other. Once the section has been completed, we converge again to cross a road on to the next part of the route, both recognising and anticipating the convergence point.
Taking a line and a lead
It is interesting to consider precisely how we navigate the route together in terms of selecting a trajectory from the myriad of different possible ‘paths’ (Wolff, 1973) or ‘lines’ over any particular piece of ground. Given the scope of the paper, I shall, however, confine myself to an analysis of convergence and divergence points; the former being points on the run where our paths, geographical and temporal, converge.
As Weeks (1996) has noted in relation to achieving synchrony in musical performance, each performer must take into account the other’s actions, and this ‘practical reflexivity’ requires mutual interpretation and anticipation. An analogous reflexivity is required in running-together. Onrouteswithahigh degree of familiarity to both partners, this is rendered easier by the fact that we are both familiar with not only our own preferred trajectory or line over particular terrain, but also with the other person’ s chosen line. So for example, when crossing a certain section of open parkland on a slight incline, I typically take the upper ground whilst my partner opts for the flatter stretch. As we approach this section of the route, both of us diverge slightly in preparation for taking separate lines. Over many runs, we have both come to recognise and anticipate the divergence point. Over this section, we typically run at about 3 metres’ distance from each other. Once the section has been completed, we converge again to cross a road on to the next part of the route, both recognising and anticipating the convergence point.
23
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
If one or other of us happens to be in the
lead when a convergence point is
encountered, then she or he will by
tradition wait for the other to catch up,
before progressing. Convergence points
are many and varied over our running
routes, mainly comprising ‘natural
boundaries’ (Ryave & Schenkein, 1975:
266) such as road intersections,
roundabouts, traffic islands, underpasses,
the apex of slopes, and also changes in
terrain such as where grassland gives way
to woodland. All these features act as
convergence points where, if necessary,
one of us will slow down or even stop to
wait for the other. Such waiting and
catching-up may also occur outside of
convergence points, for example,
whenever one of us judges that the other
is running ‘off the back’ or has been
‘dropped’, that is running off the pace,
lagging behind, and may consequently be
in need of support or encouragement in
order to re-establish running-together.
Given differences over a range of
parameters, such as our preferred ‘natural’
pace, different degrees of sure-footedness
over rough ground and other terrain
hazards, different abilities with regard to
hill-climbing and descent, not to mention
different levels of ‘form’ on any given
day, achieving running-together often
demands concentrated convergence
activity. At times, of course, running
alongside each other in close proximity
may be precluded or constrained by the
demands of the terrain, and single-file
running has to be instituted.
Contested terrain
Movement towards single-file running usually follows tradition where the route is familiar and we have established a convention of who takes the role of leadperson at various points in the route. Someof these points are ‘uncontested’,
Contested terrain
Movement towards single-file running usually follows tradition where the route is familiar and we have established a convention of who takes the role of leadperson at various points in the route. Someof these points are ‘uncontested’,
in that we each know without question
who will take the lead. Other points are
more open to debate and contest;
sometimes one takes the lead,
sometimes the other, depending on a
range of factors, for example, which of
us is running a little faster, or who
happens to be in the lead at the time.
Over such contested sections, although
rare, it may sometimes even become
necessary to articulate who will take the
lead via performative utterances such as
in the following field note.
It’s the first night of winter running when we are obliged to train in the dark afterwork. Alwaysdifficultforafew weeks as we reluctantly adjust to night- time training. Routes have to be renegotiated in order to provide as much lit ground as possible. Tonight we nearly collided at the little gate to the park, which we don’t usually use in daylight runs. Elbows and shoulders jostled to the point where J. muttered in annoyance: ‘Me!’ (ie ‘me first’)
It’s the first night of winter running when we are obliged to train in the dark afterwork. Alwaysdifficultforafew weeks as we reluctantly adjust to night- time training. Routes have to be renegotiated in order to provide as much lit ground as possible. Tonight we nearly collided at the little gate to the park, which we don’t usually use in daylight runs. Elbows and shoulders jostled to the point where J. muttered in annoyance: ‘Me!’ (ie ‘me first’)
24
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
The
‘performative’ in the ethno- methodological sense (see Turner, 1975) in that the talk also refers to an action. Being obliged to resort to articulating this particular action, however, is highly unusual. Where the route is unfamiliar, the general, tacit rule is for me to take the lead, not on account of any ‘women first’ convention, but for the functional reason that I tend to be more sure- footed than my partner. This means I am consequently less likely to stumble on unfamiliar, rough or unstable terrain, and can report back to him if necessary, on the characteristics of the ground, any peculiarities, and so on. The convention of my lead-taking in such instances has actually been articulated explicitly between us, not usually during the performance of a run, but in reflective discussion outside the activity.
‘performative’ in the ethno- methodological sense (see Turner, 1975) in that the talk also refers to an action. Being obliged to resort to articulating this particular action, however, is highly unusual. Where the route is unfamiliar, the general, tacit rule is for me to take the lead, not on account of any ‘women first’ convention, but for the functional reason that I tend to be more sure- footed than my partner. This means I am consequently less likely to stumble on unfamiliar, rough or unstable terrain, and can report back to him if necessary, on the characteristics of the ground, any peculiarities, and so on. The convention of my lead-taking in such instances has actually been articulated explicitly between us, not usually during the performance of a run, but in reflective discussion outside the activity.
utterance in this case is
In addition to the demands of the terrain,
other factors impinge upon, indeed often
seek to subvert, our best attempts at
synchrony, and some of these navigational
hazards will now be considered.
Pedestrians and other hazards
The ‘navigational problem’ of walking has been described in some depth by Ryave & Schenkein (1975), who observe that co-walkers managing not to collide with one another or with some other physical obstacle is the outcome of concerted work on the part of the co- participants. Such ‘self-management’ (Hunt & Wickham, 1994: 79) can require even greater concentrated effort when one is running at some speed, over uneven ground and/or in space-constrained contexts. The actual degree of proximity may vary widely during the training session, even when we as participants agree to be running ‘together’. At points during the run, for example where the path is narrow and constricted, my co- runner and I find ourselves so closely aligned as to be touching elbows, which generally results in slight annoyance, and a consequent readjustment of line in order to avoid further jostling. At other times, however, there may be several metres distance between us, either laterally or with one partner in front of the other. Avoiding collisions with, or ‘cutting up’ (precipitously moving in front of) one’s partner requires a good deal of concentration, attention, checking and regulation of position, both of self and other, adjustment and readjustment.
Collision with other pedestrians is a regular and routine hazard for those who undertake their running in non pedestrian- free zones, in what Smith (1997: 60) has termed ‘normatively-ordered spaces’ which are regulated not only by law and traffic codes, but also by a number of largely taken-for-granted, indeterminate
Pedestrians and other hazards
The ‘navigational problem’ of walking has been described in some depth by Ryave & Schenkein (1975), who observe that co-walkers managing not to collide with one another or with some other physical obstacle is the outcome of concerted work on the part of the co- participants. Such ‘self-management’ (Hunt & Wickham, 1994: 79) can require even greater concentrated effort when one is running at some speed, over uneven ground and/or in space-constrained contexts. The actual degree of proximity may vary widely during the training session, even when we as participants agree to be running ‘together’. At points during the run, for example where the path is narrow and constricted, my co- runner and I find ourselves so closely aligned as to be touching elbows, which generally results in slight annoyance, and a consequent readjustment of line in order to avoid further jostling. At other times, however, there may be several metres distance between us, either laterally or with one partner in front of the other. Avoiding collisions with, or ‘cutting up’ (precipitously moving in front of) one’s partner requires a good deal of concentration, attention, checking and regulation of position, both of self and other, adjustment and readjustment.
Collision with other pedestrians is a regular and routine hazard for those who undertake their running in non pedestrian- free zones, in what Smith (1997: 60) has termed ‘normatively-ordered spaces’ which are regulated not only by law and traffic codes, but also by a number of largely taken-for-granted, indeterminate
(Gerholm, 1990) rules of interactional
conduct. In the majority of cases we
experienced and recorded, the
expectation of the other pedestrian(s)
appeared quite clearly to be that we, as
runners, should make every effort to
take avoidance action with regard to
walkers. Without quizzing our co-
pedestrians, it is not of course possible
to ascertain whether this expectation
was based purely upon the notion that
we were engaged in running per se (as
opposed to walking for example) and
therefore should feel obliged to make
way for the walker, due to the
somewhat ‘deviant’ nature of our
minority activity in comparison with the
overwhelming majority of pedestrians
who walk rather than run. Another
possibility is that the expectation was
based upon velocity, in that the walker
was moving more slowly (usually) than
the runner, who was consequently
expected to make allowance for the
slower-moving object on the grounds of
the speed of movement, rather than the
actual action of running.
In a small minority of cases, we noted that the reverse situation applied: walkers would politely cede passage to us, an event usually accompanied by a direct look, and sometimes a positive remark such as a standard greeting, ‘after you’ or ‘well done!’. In the majority of these cases we recorded, it was more mature adults aged 50 and above, who tended to make way in this fashion, whether walking solo, in pairs or in a group. Interestingly, we noted some national variations in ceding way behaviour. When running in France, for example, there was a noticeable tendency for most walkers, of all ages, to give way to runners, particularly when in rural or parkland contexts. Different social norms were clearly in operation, but it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine such national
In a small minority of cases, we noted that the reverse situation applied: walkers would politely cede passage to us, an event usually accompanied by a direct look, and sometimes a positive remark such as a standard greeting, ‘after you’ or ‘well done!’. In the majority of these cases we recorded, it was more mature adults aged 50 and above, who tended to make way in this fashion, whether walking solo, in pairs or in a group. Interestingly, we noted some national variations in ceding way behaviour. When running in France, for example, there was a noticeable tendency for most walkers, of all ages, to give way to runners, particularly when in rural or parkland contexts. Different social norms were clearly in operation, but it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine such national
25
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
behavioural differences or to speculate as
to their basis, interesting though this
would be. The strength of the normative
expectation that runners in Britain should
give way to walkers could be ascertained
by the fact that any violation of this
unstated, tacit norm resulted in certain
visible and/or audible social
consequences, ranging from mildly
disapproving looks, utterings such as ‘tut-
tutting’, through to highly ‘uncivil
attention’ (Smith, 1997: 64) such as
verbal abuse and jostling.
As a brief postscript to the above portrayal, it should be noted that these norms relate primarily to adult co- pedestrians; young children, teenagers and dogs were found to form distinct categories in terms of behavioural forms. The data revealed, unsurprisingly perhaps, that young children and dogs were found to be largely exempted from any requirement for they themselves to be responsible for taking avoidance action, at least upon their own initiative. Only if adults instructed them specifically to stand aside, or to make allowance for us in other ways, were young children and to some extent, dogs, expected to give way to oncoming runners. Adolescents and teenagers formed a very distinct behavioural unit, certainly when in a group of two or more, analogous to the notorious ‘lolling group’, described by Goffman (1963: 58). The lolling group generally proved the most challenging navigational problem.
Concluding remarks
As noted, currently there is a dearth of phenomenological and particularly of ethnomethodological studies of sporting and physical activity.
As a brief postscript to the above portrayal, it should be noted that these norms relate primarily to adult co- pedestrians; young children, teenagers and dogs were found to form distinct categories in terms of behavioural forms. The data revealed, unsurprisingly perhaps, that young children and dogs were found to be largely exempted from any requirement for they themselves to be responsible for taking avoidance action, at least upon their own initiative. Only if adults instructed them specifically to stand aside, or to make allowance for us in other ways, were young children and to some extent, dogs, expected to give way to oncoming runners. Adolescents and teenagers formed a very distinct behavioural unit, certainly when in a group of two or more, analogous to the notorious ‘lolling group’, described by Goffman (1963: 58). The lolling group generally proved the most challenging navigational problem.
Concluding remarks
As noted, currently there is a dearth of phenomenological and particularly of ethnomethodological studies of sporting and physical activity.
This paper, based upon a joint
autoethnographic research study, has
sought in a small way to address this
lacuna via the examination of one
particular routine sporting activity,
distance running, and more specifically
the ways in which two partners
accomplish running-together during
training sessions. Despite the relative
mundanity of the activity under
analysis, the effort and concentration
required to produce running-together
should not be underestimated. Indeed,
the high degree of concentration and
practical work demanded to accomplish
running-together is regularly made
salient to both myself and my training
partner when we contrast the demands
of running-together with running-alone;
the latter being a relatively easy solo
production in comparison. It is hoped
that this brief analysis has started to
unveil and to provide some insight into
the routine, mundane, but also complex
and intricate practices involved in
accomplishing running-together. This
represents merely a first step however,
and there would seem to be great
potential for the application of
ethnomethodological analysis and
insight into the ‘field’ of sporting and
physical activity in order both to extend
the ethnomethodological literature into
relatively under-researched areas, and
also to provide a fresh perspective
through which to expand the sociology
of sport.
26
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
References
Allen Collinson, J (2003) Running into injury time: Distance running and temporality, Sociology of Sport Journal, 20 (4), 331-350.
Allen Collinson, J & Hockey, J (2001) Runners’ tales: Autoethnography, injury and narrative, Auto/Biography, IX (1 & 2), 95-106.
Benson, D & Hughes, J A (1983) The Perspective of Ethnomethodology, London: Longman.
Brekhus, W (1998) A Sociology of the unmarked: Redirecting our focus, Sociological Theory, 16 (1), 34-51.
Bueno, E P (2002) One step at a time: Japanese women walking, Journal of Mundane Behaviour, 3 (1), available at
h t t p : / / m u n d a n e b e h a v i o r . o r g / i s s u e s / v3 n l / b u e n o . h t m
Coates, S (1999) Analysing the physical: An
ethnomethodological study Ethnographic Studies, 4, 14-26.
Allen Collinson, J (2003) Running into injury time: Distance running and temporality, Sociology of Sport Journal, 20 (4), 331-350.
Allen Collinson, J & Hockey, J (2001) Runners’ tales: Autoethnography, injury and narrative, Auto/Biography, IX (1 & 2), 95-106.
Benson, D & Hughes, J A (1983) The Perspective of Ethnomethodology, London: Longman.
Brekhus, W (1998) A Sociology of the unmarked: Redirecting our focus, Sociological Theory, 16 (1), 34-51.
Bueno, E P (2002) One step at a time: Japanese women walking, Journal of Mundane Behaviour, 3 (1), available at
h t t p : / / m u n d a n e b e h a v i o r . o r g / i s s u e s / v3 n l / b u e n o . h t m
Coates, S (1999) Analysing the physical: An
ethnomethodological study Ethnographic Studies, 4, 14-26.
Garfinkel, H
Ethnomethodology,
Prentice Hall.
(1967) Studies
Englewood Cliffs,
in
NY :
NY :
of boxing,
Coffey, A (1999) The Ethnographic Self:
Garfinkel, H, edited by Warfield Rawls, A
(2002) Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working
out Durkheim’ s aphorism, New York: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Gerholm, T (1990) On tacit knowledge in in academia, European Journal of Education, 25, 263-271.
Glaser, B & Strauss, A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Goffman, E (1963) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings, New York: The Free Press.
Goode, D (1994) A World Without Words: The Social Construction of Children Born Deaf and Blind, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Granskog, J (2003) Just ‘Tri’ and ‘Du’ it: the variable impact of female involvement in the triathlon/duathlon sport culture, in: A Bolin & J Granskog (eds), Athletic Intruders. Ethnographic Research on Women, Culture, and Exercise (pp. 27-52), New York: State University of New York Press.
Hayan o, D M (1979) Auto-ethn ogr aph y: Paradigms, problems and prospects, Human Organization, 38 (1), 99-104.
Hayano, D M (1982) Poker Faces: The Life and Work of Professional Card Players, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hunt, A & Wickham, G (1994) Foucault and Law: Towards a Sociology of Law as Governance, London: Pluto.
Kerry, D S & Armour, K M (2000) Sport sciences and the promise of phenomenology: philosophy, method, and insight, Quest, 52 (1), 1-17.
Kew, F (1986) Playing the game: An ethnomethodological perspective, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 21 (4) 305- 321.
Lofland, J & Lofland, L H (1985) (third edition) Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Gerholm, T (1990) On tacit knowledge in in academia, European Journal of Education, 25, 263-271.
Glaser, B & Strauss, A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Goffman, E (1963) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings, New York: The Free Press.
Goode, D (1994) A World Without Words: The Social Construction of Children Born Deaf and Blind, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Granskog, J (2003) Just ‘Tri’ and ‘Du’ it: the variable impact of female involvement in the triathlon/duathlon sport culture, in: A Bolin & J Granskog (eds), Athletic Intruders. Ethnographic Research on Women, Culture, and Exercise (pp. 27-52), New York: State University of New York Press.
Hayan o, D M (1979) Auto-ethn ogr aph y: Paradigms, problems and prospects, Human Organization, 38 (1), 99-104.
Hayano, D M (1982) Poker Faces: The Life and Work of Professional Card Players, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hunt, A & Wickham, G (1994) Foucault and Law: Towards a Sociology of Law as Governance, London: Pluto.
Kerry, D S & Armour, K M (2000) Sport sciences and the promise of phenomenology: philosophy, method, and insight, Quest, 52 (1), 1-17.
Kew, F (1986) Playing the game: An ethnomethodological perspective, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 21 (4) 305- 321.
Lofland, J & Lofland, L H (1985) (third edition) Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Fi eldwork and
London: Sage.
London: Sage.
the Representation of Identity,
Denison, J (1999) Boxed in, in: A Sparkes & M
Silvennoinen (eds), Talking Bodies (pp. 29-36),
Jyvaskyla, Finland: SoPhi.
Denison, J (2002) Writing a ‘true’ sports story, Auto/Biography, X (1 & 2), 131-137.
Duncan, M C (2000) Reflex, Sociology of Sport Journal, 17 (10), 60-68.
Ellis, C (1997) Evocative autoethnography, in: W Tierney & Y Lincoln (eds), Representation and the T ext (pp. 115-139), New Y ork: State University of New York Press.
Ellis, C & Bochner, A (2000) Autoethnography, p e r s on a l n a r r at i v e , r e f l e xi vi t y . R e s e a r c h er a s subject, in: N K Denzin & Y Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed, pp. 733-768), London: Sage.
Fernandez-Balboa, J M (1998) Transcending masculinities, in: C Hickey, L Fitzclarence & R Matthews (eds), Where the Boys Are (pp. 121- 139), Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Denison, J (2002) Writing a ‘true’ sports story, Auto/Biography, X (1 & 2), 131-137.
Duncan, M C (2000) Reflex, Sociology of Sport Journal, 17 (10), 60-68.
Ellis, C (1997) Evocative autoethnography, in: W Tierney & Y Lincoln (eds), Representation and the T ext (pp. 115-139), New Y ork: State University of New York Press.
Ellis, C & Bochner, A (2000) Autoethnography, p e r s on a l n a r r at i v e , r e f l e xi vi t y . R e s e a r c h er a s subject, in: N K Denzin & Y Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed, pp. 733-768), London: Sage.
Fernandez-Balboa, J M (1998) Transcending masculinities, in: C Hickey, L Fitzclarence & R Matthews (eds), Where the Boys Are (pp. 121- 139), Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
27
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
Lynch, M, Livingston, E & Garfinkel, H (1983),
Temporal order in laboratory work, in: K Knorr
Cetina & M Mulkay (eds), Science Observed:
Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (pp.
205-238), London: Sage.
Mehan, H & Wood, H (1975) The Reality of Ethnomethodology, London: John Wiley.
Okley, J & Callaway, H (1992) Anthropology and Autobiography, London: Routledge.
Pronger, B (1990) Gay Jocks: A phenomenology of gay men in athletics, in: M A Messner & D F Sabo (eds), Sport, Men and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist Perspectives (pp. 141-152), Champaign, ILL: Human Kinetics.
Rail, G (1990) Physical contact in women’ s basketball: A first interpretation, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 25, 269-285.
Rail, G (1992) Physical contact in women’ s basketball: A phenomenological construction and contextualization, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 27, 49-62.
Reed-Danahay, D (ed) (1997) Auto/Ethnography, Oxford: Berg.
Rinehart, R (1995) Pentecostal aquatics, Studies in Symbolic Interactionism, 19, 109-121.
Robilliard, A B (1999) Meaning of Disability: The Lived Experience of Paralysis, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Ryave, A L & Schenkein, J N (1975) Notes on the art of walking, in: R Turner (ed), Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings (pp. 265- 274), Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sanjek, R (ed) (1990) Fieldnotes: The Making of Anthropology, Ithaca, NY : Cornell Universit y Press.
Schutz, A (1967) The Phenomenology of the Social World. Translated by G Walsh and F. Lehnert. Evanston, ILL: Northwestern University Press.
Sharrock, W & A nderson, B (1986) The Ethnomethodologists, Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
Silvennoinen, M (1999a), Anguish of the body, in: A Sparkes & M Silvennoinen (eds), Talking Bodies (pp 93-98), Jyvaskyla, Finland: SoPhi.
Mehan, H & Wood, H (1975) The Reality of Ethnomethodology, London: John Wiley.
Okley, J & Callaway, H (1992) Anthropology and Autobiography, London: Routledge.
Pronger, B (1990) Gay Jocks: A phenomenology of gay men in athletics, in: M A Messner & D F Sabo (eds), Sport, Men and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist Perspectives (pp. 141-152), Champaign, ILL: Human Kinetics.
Rail, G (1990) Physical contact in women’ s basketball: A first interpretation, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 25, 269-285.
Rail, G (1992) Physical contact in women’ s basketball: A phenomenological construction and contextualization, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 27, 49-62.
Reed-Danahay, D (ed) (1997) Auto/Ethnography, Oxford: Berg.
Rinehart, R (1995) Pentecostal aquatics, Studies in Symbolic Interactionism, 19, 109-121.
Robilliard, A B (1999) Meaning of Disability: The Lived Experience of Paralysis, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Ryave, A L & Schenkein, J N (1975) Notes on the art of walking, in: R Turner (ed), Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings (pp. 265- 274), Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sanjek, R (ed) (1990) Fieldnotes: The Making of Anthropology, Ithaca, NY : Cornell Universit y Press.
Schutz, A (1967) The Phenomenology of the Social World. Translated by G Walsh and F. Lehnert. Evanston, ILL: Northwestern University Press.
Sharrock, W & A nderson, B (1986) The Ethnomethodologists, Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
Silvennoinen, M (1999a), Anguish of the body, in: A Sparkes & M Silvennoinen (eds), Talking Bodies (pp 93-98), Jyvaskyla, Finland: SoPhi.
Silvennoinen, M (1999b) My body as metaphor,
in: A Sparkes & M Silvennoinen (eds), Talking
Bodies (pp. 163-175), Jyvaskyla, Finland:
SoPhi.
Smith, G (1997) Incivil attention and everyday intolerance: Vicissitudes of exercising in public places, Perspectives on Social Problems, 9, 59- 79.
Smith, S J (1992) Studying the lifeworld of physical education: A phenomenological orietation, in: A C Sparkes (ed), Research in Physical Education and Sport: Exploring alternative visions (pp 61-89), London: Falmer.
Sparkes, A (1996) The fatal flaw, Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (4), 463-494.
Sparkes, A (2000) Autoethnography and narratives of the self: Reflections on criteria in action, Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 21-43.
Sparkes, A (2003) Bodies, identities, selves: autoethnographic fragments and reflections, in: J Denison & P Markula (eds), Moving Writing: Crafting Movement in Sport and Research (pp 51-76), New York: Peter Lang.
Stanley, L (1992) The Auto/biographical I, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Stebbins, R A (2001) New Directions in the Theory and Research of Serious Leisure, Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Sudnow, D N (1972) Temporal parameters of interpersonal observation, in: D Sudnow (ed), Studies in Social Interaction (pp 259-279), New York: Free Press.
Sudnow, D N (1978) Ways of the Hand, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sudwell, M (1999) The body bridge, in: A Sparkes & M Silvennoinen (eds), Talking Bodies (pp 13-28), Jyvaskyla, Finland: SoPhi.
Tedlock, B (1991) From participant observation to the observation of participation: The emergence of narrative ethnography, Journal of Anthropological Research, 41, 69-94.
Tiihonen, A (1994) Asthma, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 29 (1), 51- 62.
Smith, G (1997) Incivil attention and everyday intolerance: Vicissitudes of exercising in public places, Perspectives on Social Problems, 9, 59- 79.
Smith, S J (1992) Studying the lifeworld of physical education: A phenomenological orietation, in: A C Sparkes (ed), Research in Physical Education and Sport: Exploring alternative visions (pp 61-89), London: Falmer.
Sparkes, A (1996) The fatal flaw, Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (4), 463-494.
Sparkes, A (2000) Autoethnography and narratives of the self: Reflections on criteria in action, Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 21-43.
Sparkes, A (2003) Bodies, identities, selves: autoethnographic fragments and reflections, in: J Denison & P Markula (eds), Moving Writing: Crafting Movement in Sport and Research (pp 51-76), New York: Peter Lang.
Stanley, L (1992) The Auto/biographical I, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Stebbins, R A (2001) New Directions in the Theory and Research of Serious Leisure, Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Sudnow, D N (1972) Temporal parameters of interpersonal observation, in: D Sudnow (ed), Studies in Social Interaction (pp 259-279), New York: Free Press.
Sudnow, D N (1978) Ways of the Hand, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sudwell, M (1999) The body bridge, in: A Sparkes & M Silvennoinen (eds), Talking Bodies (pp 13-28), Jyvaskyla, Finland: SoPhi.
Tedlock, B (1991) From participant observation to the observation of participation: The emergence of narrative ethnography, Journal of Anthropological Research, 41, 69-94.
Tiihonen, A (1994) Asthma, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 29 (1), 51- 62.
28
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
Tsang, T (2000) Let me tell you a story: A
narrative exploration of identity in high-
performance sport, Sociology of Sport Journal, 17
(1), 44-59.
Turner, R (1975) Words, utterances and activities, in: R Turner (ed), Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings (pp 197-215), Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Van Maanen, J (ed) (1995) Representation in Ethnography, London: Sage.
Weeks, P (1996) Synchrony lost, synchron y regained: The achievement of musical co- ordination, Human Studies, 19, 199-228.
Wessinger, N P (1994) I hit a home run! The lived meaning of scoring in games and physical education, Quest, 46, 425-439.
Wolff, M (1973) Notes on the behavior of pedestrians, in: A Birenbaum & E Sagarin (eds), People in Places: The Sociology of the Familiar (pp 35-48), London: Thomas Nelson & Sons.
Woods, S (1992) Describing the experience of lesbian physical educators: A phenomenological study, in: A C Sparkes (ed), Research in Physical Education and Sport: Exploring alternative visions, London: Falmer.
Turner, R (1975) Words, utterances and activities, in: R Turner (ed), Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings (pp 197-215), Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Van Maanen, J (ed) (1995) Representation in Ethnography, London: Sage.
Weeks, P (1996) Synchrony lost, synchron y regained: The achievement of musical co- ordination, Human Studies, 19, 199-228.
Wessinger, N P (1994) I hit a home run! The lived meaning of scoring in games and physical education, Quest, 46, 425-439.
Wolff, M (1973) Notes on the behavior of pedestrians, in: A Birenbaum & E Sagarin (eds), People in Places: The Sociology of the Familiar (pp 35-48), London: Thomas Nelson & Sons.
Woods, S (1992) Describing the experience of lesbian physical educators: A phenomenological study, in: A C Sparkes (ed), Research in Physical Education and Sport: Exploring alternative visions, London: Falmer.
29
Ethnographic Studies, 8, 2006
Comments
Post a Comment