From Minds to Moments: How Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis Reconceived Sociological Social Psychology

 From Minds to Moments:

How Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis

Reconceived Sociological Social Psychology

Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

Abstract

This paper explores the transformation of sociological social psychology through the lens of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EM/CA). In contrast to mainstream models rooted in individual cognition and internal mental states, EM/CA foregrounds the sequential, embodied, and publicly available organization of social action. By focusing on how phenomena such as identity, moral order, agency, inequality, categorization, and self are interactionally accomplished, EM/CA offers a radical rethinking of foundational sociological concepts. Drawing on canonical and contemporary literature—particularly the Santa Barbara School tradition and its integration with critical race theory—this paper reviews the historical trajectory and theoretical contributions of EM/CA and proposes a reorientation of sociological social psychology away from minds and toward moments. The paper advances “Critical Interactionism” as a synthesis of ethnomethodological rigor with the normative commitments of critical social theory, demonstrating that the micro-analysis of talk and interaction is inherently consequential for understanding domination, resistance, and social change. In so doing, it argues for an empirically grounded, action-centered sociology that re-specifies the psychological within the social.

Section I Introduction

Over the past half-century, ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA) have quietly but radically transformed the landscape of sociological social psychology. Born as a critique of mainstream methodological and theoretical assumptions in the social sciences, these approaches redirected analytic attention from cognitive models and internal mental states to the publicly observable practices through which social order is achieved in real time.¹

This shift—what we might call the movement from ”minds” to ”moments”—replaces abstract mentalist frameworks with empirically grounded investigations of action-in-context. The EM/CA tradition reveals that identity, agency, morality, inequality, and meaning do not reside in psychological traits or internalized structures, but are enacted, maintained, and contested through practices of turn-taking, repair, sequence organization, and accountability.² As Harold Garfinkel famously argued, social facts are not external constraints but ongoing accomplishments, produced and recognized through the work of competent members.³

In the interactionist tradition, Erving Goffman laid important groundwork for this reorientation.⁴ He rejected personality traits as explanatory resources and instead focused on the dramaturgical management of self in interaction. Ethnomethodology extended this insight, insisting that everyday reasoning and accountability structures are the primary sites where social reality is constructed. Conversation analysis, building on these foundations, turned its attention to the sequential organization of talk, demonstrating that meaning is not a matter of internal cognition but of context-sensitive, turn-by-turn coordination⁵.

These perspectives challenge the ontological dualism of traditional social psychology, which often treats mind and society as distinct domains. Instead, EM/CA re-specifies psychological constructs as publicly displayed practices.⁶ Identity is not something one possesses but something one does, in ways that are recognizable to others. Norms are not internalized directives but shared expectations enacted and repaired in situ. Agency is not located in intention or will but in accountable action within a moral order of interaction.⁷

This re-specification has significant implications for how we understand both social order and social change. By shifting the locus of analysis from individual cognition to interactional practice, EM/CA reframes long-standing questions about conformity, deviance, stigma, and resistance. It provides a methodological lens through which we can examine how power operates not just through institutions or ideologies, but in the micro-practices of talk: how questions are asked, how silences are treated, how categories are invoked, how accountability is negotiated.⁶

As Clayman and Turowetz (2023) emphasize, ethnomethodology and conversation analysis approach social psychology as a natural observational science of social action. This orientation departs radically from experimental and survey methods that presuppose individual cognition as the explanatory locus. EM/CA treats talk as social action, not simply the exchange of information, and investigates how participants accomplish shared intelligibility in real time. Their chapter highlights three methodological commitments foundational to this program: first, the reliance on recorded data to capture the details of action as it unfolds; second, the principle of order at all points, which insists that even the most ordinary conduct is methodically organized and analyzable; and third, the case-by-case analysis of single interactions coupled with collections of similar cases to reveal stable organizational patterns. This methodological posture respecifies the very object of social psychology: rather than asking what mental states individuals possess, EM/CA asks how a mutually intelligible social world is achieved at all (Clayman & Turowetz 2023, pp. 3–15, 28–50). Our project builds on these commitments, taking seriously the proposal that social-theological social psychology must be grounded in the recorded, sequential organization of interaction.

Ethnomethodology has often been characterized by its program of ”respecification,” reworking foundational concepts of social science from the standpoint of members’ methods rather than theorists’ abstractions. Yet, as Clayman (1995) cautions in The Dialectic of Ethnomethodology, an exclusive focus on respecifying the established themes of mainstream disciplines risks allowing those disciplines to set the agenda. In his view, Button’s (1991) influential account of ethnomethodology’s respecification project inadvertently positions EM/CA as a corrective to pre-existing sociological or psychological frameworks, rather than as an autonomous program of inquiry with its own distinctive questions and phenomena. Ethnomethodology, Clayman argues, is not simply about translating canonical social-scientific problems into EM/CA terms; it is about uncovering and analyzing the endogenous methods by which social order is produced, independent of whether those topics align with legacy disciplinary concerns. Our project, while engaging in respecification, seeks to remain mindful of this dialectic—to avoid merely circling inherited constructs and to highlight the unique analytic agenda that EM/CA brings to sociological social psychology.

The contribution of this paper is to show how EM/CA reconceives sociological social psychology as a sociology of interaction. While mainstream social psychology often seeks to uncover the hidden determinants of behavior—attitudes, values, schemas—EM/CA asks how these very phenomena are made observable, intelligible, and actionable in the flow of real-time encounters. Rather than theorizing about how beliefs influence behavior, EM/CA studies how beliefs are displayed, attributed, questioned, or taken for granted in sequences of action.⁷

This is not merely a methodological debate; it is a paradigmatic shift with profound theoretical and political stakes. When we analyze prejudice through survey responses or implicit association tests, we risk treating racism or sexism as latent traits. When we analyze them as situated practices—as in how slurs are used, how racial categories are made relevant, how bias is resisted or normalized—we gain analytic access to the social work of inequality.⁸ EM/CA thus enables a critical social psychology that is empirically grounded, morally attuned, and analytically precise.⁸

Moreover, this approach highlights the reflexive organization of everyday life. Participants in interaction are not passive subjects of structure or culture; they are active monitors of meaning, accountability, and appropriateness. They orient to the normative order in how they initiate topics, manage turn-taking, handle misunderstandings, and produce explanations.⁹ As Garfinkel noted, this reflexivity is not a meta-level philosophical stance but an ordinary feature of practical reasoning. It is through this reflexivity that social life is made orderly—and through which it may also be contested and transformed.⁹

The EM/CA paradigm thus offers both a theoretical framework and a methodological orientation. It calls on researchers to treat the details of interaction as the primary site of social analysis. This involves close attention to how actions are designed, how responses are shaped, how sequences unfold, and how participants display their understandings of what is going on.¹⁰ It requires working with naturally occurring data, resisting the temptation to infer hidden states, and instead explicating the public practices through which knowledge, identity, and moral order are achieved.¹⁰

The implications for sociological social psychology are wide-ranging. EM/CA provides tools for re-analyzing classic phenomena—such as conformity, obedience, impression management, and role-taking—without resorting to mentalist or individualistic explanations. It bridges the divide between micro and macro by showing how institutional logics, cultural scripts, and social inequalities are produced and reproduced in the grain of everyday life.¹¹ It also opens new avenues for research on topics such as social inclusion, epistemic justice, and communicative equity.¹¹

At the same time, EM/CA has often been criticized for its perceived descriptiveness, its reluctance to theorize beyond the immediate interactional context, and its failure to address structural inequalities.¹² While some of these critiques are warranted, others misunderstand the radical potential of the approach. By refusing to posit hidden causes, EM/CA refuses to naturalize them. By focusing on what participants do, it makes visible the processes through which structures are enacted—and therefore, contestable.¹³

This paper advances what might be called a Critical Interactionism—a synthesis of ethnomethodology’s empirical rigor with the normative commitments of critical social theory. Critical Interactionism insists that the micro-analysis of talk and interaction is not politically neutral but inherently consequential for understanding domination, resistance, and social change. Drawing on the Santa Barbara School tradition—from Zimmerman and West’s foundational work on gender and interruption, through Maynard and Turowetz’s analysis of diagnostic categorization, to Rawls, Duck, and Whitehead’s recent integration of EM/CA with critical race theory—we argue that the interaction order is always already a moral and political order. To study how turns are taken, how categories are invoked, how knowledge is distributed, is to study how power operates in its most intimate and consequential forms.

Section II Respecifying Identity

A foundational moment in the ethnomethodological study of identity came with Harold Garfinkel’s analysis of Agnes, a young person assigned male at birth who had been living as a woman and sought gender-affirming surgery. In Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967), Garfinkel approached Agnes’s case not as an instance of deviance to be corrected, but as a demonstration of how gender identity is accountably produced through everyday practices of presentation, recognition, and repair

Agnes had successfully convinced medical gatekeepers that she had a rare intersex condition, a fabricated narrative she sustained in order to gain access to surgery. Yet Garfinkel’s primary interest was not in diagnosing pathology but in understanding the methods Agnes used to pass as ”normally female” within the moral and practical reasoning of everyday life.

Passing, for Agnes, was not simply a matter of external appearance. It involved mastering the moral rules by which gender is socially organized — how to speak, walk, dress, emote, and account for oneself in ways that others would accept as ”female.” Her success depended not on biological facts but on her ability to manage inferences, suspicions, and assumptions across diverse settings. The case illustrates that gender — and, by extension, identity itself — is not a static inner essence but an ongoing practical achievement, accomplished under conditions of risk, ambiguity, and mutual accountability. Through Agnes, Garfinkel inaugurated a program of inquiry in which identity is not something we are, but something we do: a fragile and contingent accomplishment made visible through the interactional work of everyday life.

This insight paved the way for the broader EM/CA tradition to respecify identity as an emergent, situated, and interactionally managed phenomenon. Whether framed as self-concept, social role, or internalized group membership, identity is often treated in mainstream social psychology as a relatively stable psychological property. Even when modified by social constructivist language, identity is frequently conceived as something one possesses: a set of attributes, affiliations, or self-understandings that guide behavior. In contrast, the ethnomethodological approach reframes identity not as a mental state but as a public practice, locally occasioned and morally consequential.¹⁴

Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA), developed by Harvey Sacks (1972), provides a foundational tool for analyzing how identities are constituted in situ.⁸ Sacks observed that people routinely categorize others and themselves using available membership categories (e.g., ”mother,” “student,” “foreigner”) and that such categories carry ”category-bound activities” and moral expectations.⁹ These categorizations are not arbitrary; they are indexical, occasioned by context, and consequential for how action is understood. MCA reveals that identities are not background variables but endogenous features of talk — part of how speakers make sense of events, allocate responsibility, and display alignment or disalignment.¹⁴

Expanding on these foundations, Zimmerman (1998) distinguished between three levels of identity: discourse identity, which is tied to a participant’s sequential positioning within an unfolding interaction; situated identity, which refers to the roles and statuses relevant to a specific setting or encounter; and transportable social identity, which involves membership in broader social categories that travel across situations.¹¹ Zimmerman (2010) has further developed the idea of identity as context for interaction, arguing that identities are not merely topical but provide a framework through which participants coordinate local actions with broader social structures.¹² Mardi Kidwell’s research extends this analysis to embodied conduct, demonstrating how even very young children orient to the “observability” of their actions and produce recognizable social conduct (Kidwell and Zimmerman 2006, 2007). Her work on gaze as social control (Kidwell 2005) shows how visual orientation constitutes a powerful resource for managing accountability and establishing joint attention—revealing that identity and agency are accomplished not only through talk but through the body. Here, identity becomes both a proximal context — the turn-by-turn orientations of participants within a developing sequence of talk — and a distal context, linking local encounters to institutional and societal structures.

Antaki and Widdicombe (1998) similarly argue that ”identity” in interaction can be seen as a contextual resource that participants orient to in multiple ways: as a way of describing self and other, as an inferential framework for making sense of actions, as a rhetorical device for persuasion, or as a morally accountable position in a social encounter.¹³ They remind us that identity in EM/CA is not a symbolic text to be from the outside, but rather a ”texture” of socially organized, repeatable practices through which recognizability and accountability are continually negotiated.¹⁴ This perspective connects closely with Goffman’s (1983) concept of the interaction order, highlighting how face-to-face encounters are only loosely coupled with the wider social order yet fundamentally tied to it through participants’ orientation to identities — their own and others’ — as relevant social facts.¹⁵

For example, consider a speaker who says, ”As a single mother, I know how hard it is.” This utterance does more than report demographic facts; it foregrounds a morally resonant category membership that organizes expectations, claims epistemic authority, and positions the speaker’s stance as credible and protective.¹⁶ The membership category is not simply descriptive but mobilized as a moral warrant for advice or complaint, helping to organize the relevancies of the interaction. MCA provides tools to systematically track how such categories are invoked, what actions they support, and how they are held accountable in sequences of talk.¹⁷

We see this vividly in the following excerpt from a support group meeting between a volunteer and a young attendee:

Excerpt 1 (Antaki, 2016):

Volunteer: So what brought you here today?

Young man: I guess… I just don’t want to end up like some loser.

Volunteer: Okay… mm, and what would that look like to you?

Young man: Like, I dunno, like jobless, like those guys you see around…

Volunteer: Okay, so not having a job is something you really don’t want?

Young man: Yeah. I mean, I want to, like, be someone, y’know?

Here, the participant performs an act of distancing—separating himself from a stigmatized identity (”some loser,” “those guys”) while aligning with aspirational norms (”be someone”). The volunteer’s response works to normalize and reframe this identity work, validating the concern without reinforcing the stigma. Identity is co-produced, not only declared. As Antaki et al. (2016) note, this kind of interaction is shaped by latent moral hierarchies: some lives are imagined as failures, others as legitimate paths. Identity is inseparable from recognition.¹⁸

These dynamics extend into high-stakes institutional talk. In Speer’s (2020) analysis of police interviews following domestic violence incidents, victims often downplay or deflect the label of ”victim” to maintain agency, while officers may deploy gendered identities to frame responses. Similarly, Whitehead (2020) shows how racial identity is often indirectly invoked in call-in radio shows through euphemism, hesitation, and coded language — practices which nonetheless make race relevant and actionable in the interaction.

The moral dimension of identity work is also central to positioning theory, developed within discursive psychology by Davies and Harré (1990) and expanded by Bamberg (1997). Positioning emphasizes how speakers place themselves and others within normative landscapes, aligning actions with recognizable social types and anticipating moral evaluation. This connects to Zimmerman’s concept of identity-as-context by showing how discourse identities and situated identities work together to provide a framework for action that participants constantly monitor and adjust.

This respecification aligns with broader critiques of essentialism in identity studies. As Rapley (2018) argues, discursive and conversation analytic approaches resist the urge to treat identity as a coherent, stable structure and instead track how it emerges from morally ordered practices. Wetherell (2021) further emphasizes the affective dimensions of identity work, suggesting that alignment, shame, pride, and defiance are part of the embodied repertoire of self-display — matters not just of recognition but of felt recognition.

Taken together, these insights position identity not as a psychological trait but as a moral, sequential, and institutional accomplishment. It is visible in who is allowed to speak, whose categorizations go unchallenged, and how descriptions are calibrated for moral effect. By following identity through interaction, EM/CA contributes to a sociology of recognition grounded not in attitudes or ideologies, but in the lived choreography of social life.

Section III: Meaning and Accountability

A foundational question in sociological social psychology is how people make sense of their world. For symbolic interactionists, meaning is not a fixed property of signs or behaviors but an emergent, situated product of interaction. Blumer famously argued that ”meanings are social products, formed in and through the defining activities of people as they interact.” Meaning, in this view, is continuously revised, stabilized, and occasionally ruptured through talk. The same utterance—“You’re crazy!”—might express affection, disbelief, or insult depending on its tone, timing, and placement within an interactional sequence. For Erving Goffman, the ”expressive order” is central: gestures, glances, and silences are part of a shared moral order that must be maintained fCd recognize actions as orderly. Garfinkel’s concept of indexicality—the idea that meaning is inherently context-bound—emphasizes that no utterance means anything apart from how it is understood here and now, by these participants.

Conversation analysis builds on this foundation by developing a systematic, empirical approach to how meaning is accomplished through talk. Meaning is sequential: it unfolds across turns, anticipates responses, and is embedded in interactional projects. A question is not meaningful on its own—it makes sense because it initiates a sequence that typically calls for an answer. If the answer is delayed, qualified, or withheld, the meaning of the initial question may shift. As Schegloff, Sacks, and Jefferson (1977) showed, even pauses and hesitations can transform meaning. Consider the difference between ”yes” said immediately and ”yes…” after a long pause. The latter may convey reluctance, sarcasm, or irony—not because of internal feelings but because of its sequential placement and prosodic design.

Gene Lerner’s (1991, 1996, 2004) work on turn construction has been foundational in demonstrating how meaning emerges collaboratively within and across turns. His analysis of “collaborative turn sequences” shows how recipients can anticipate and complete a speaker’s turn-in-progress, revealing that meaning-making is not confined to individual cognition but is distributed across participants. When a recipient produces an “anticipatory completion”—finishing another’s sentence before they do—they display their real-time understanding of where the turn is heading, making visible the shared, projectable character of grammatical and pragmatic structure. Lerner’s (2004) edited volume Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation collects foundational work demonstrating these collaborative achievements.

Gail Jefferson’s studies of laughter further illuminate how meaning is managed across turns. Laughter may index amusement, embarrassment, irony, or even aggression. Its interpretation depends on timing, co-occurrence with speech, and the placement of laughter particles. When someone laughs after saying, ”You really think that’s going to work?“, the laughter can mark derision or solidarity. Without careful attention to sequence, such nuance would be flattened into ambiguity. Jefferson demonstrated that ”non-verbal” cues are themselves structured, and must be analyzed in relation to prior and next turns—not treated as expressive residues of internal states.

This understanding of meaning-as-accountability also appears in work on assessment and affiliation. Anita Pomerantz (1984) showed that agreements and disagreements are not symmetrical: disagreements are dispreferred, often delayed or mitigated, while agreements are expected. The very act of assessing (”That’s beautiful”) anticipates alignment. A blunt disagreement—“No, it’s ugly”—violates normative preferences for affiliation, prompting potential repair. Similarly, Heritage and Raymond (2005) show how even basic knowledge claims (”She’s pregnant”) are managed in relation to epistemic rights and responsibilities. Who has the right to assert something? Who should already know it? Meaning here is not just a matter of content but of entitlement, access, and inference.

These dynamics are especially visible in institutional interaction, where participants must make themselves understood under conditions of urgency, risk, or formal constraint. In Zimmerman’s (1992) analysis of 911 calls, meaning becomes a matter of both moral accountability and institutional consequence. The landmark study by Whalen, Zimmerman, and Whalen (1988), “When Words Fail: A Single Case Analysis,” demonstrates how the sequential organization of emergency calls can have life-or-death consequences when institutional protocols and caller urgency fail to align. Jack Whalen’s subsequent workplace studies (Whalen and Vinkhuyzen 2000; Whalen et al. 2004) extended this analysis to show how expert knowledge is collaboratively produced in technology-mediated service encounters. Consider the following excerpt from a real emergency call:

1 Operator: Nine-one-one emergency.

2 Caller: Uh, I need an ambulance.

3 Operator: Okay, what’s the problem?

4 Caller: My husband’s—he’s just collapsed, he’s not breathing—

5 Operator: Is he conscious?

6 Caller: No! I don’t think so—please hurry!

Here, the caller’s initial utterance (”I need an ambulance”) is a socially meaningful act, but its institutional import is shaped through the operator’s next turn: ”What’s the problem?” The question displays a need for triage-relevant detail, converting the caller’s urgency into a specific diagnostic trajectory. The caller’s phrase ”he’s not breathing” does not simply report a fact—it enters into a sequence where its meaning is shaped by the operator’s questions, the possibility of response delay, and the scripted protocols of the 911 system. ”Is he conscious?” is not just an information request; it reflects a presupposition structure and begins to frame the incident within a set of typifications of emergency. This kind of sequential unpacking illustrates how meaning is contingent, institutionalized, and reflexively oriented to real-world consequences.

Meaning, then, is not merely cognitive or linguistic—it is moral and procedural. It is accountable in the sense that it can be asked for, defended, misunderstood, corrected, or refused. Misunderstandings themselves reveal the structure of meaning-making: they prompt repair, clarification, or conflict. To say ”I didn’t mean it like that” is to acknowledge the moral work of interpretation. The structure of repair—whether self-initiated or other-initiated, immediate or delayed—indexes the normative expectations of shared understanding.

What ethnomethodology and conversation analysis offer is not a theory about meaning but an analytic practice for tracing how people make, display, and contest meaning in real-time. This is particularly powerful in settings of ambiguity, irony, trauma, or asymmetry, where participants must find ways to make themselves understood within interactional and institutional constraints. Rather than decoding symbolic messages, EMCA shows how members co-produce meaning as a socially distributed achievement.

Section IV: The Moral Order of Everyday Life (Fully Updated)

The interactionist tradition has long emphasized that social life is pervaded by a moral order—not one imposed from above, but one achieved moment by moment in ordinary interaction (Rawls, 1987). Even seemingly mundane exchanges carry moral weight. A delay in greeting, an awkward pause, a failure to reciprocate eye contact—all can be interpreted as slights, threats, or breaches of solidarity. As Émile Durkheim ([1893] 1997) argued, morality is not simply a system of values but a structure of obligations embedded in social facts. For ethnomethodologists and conversation analysts, this moral structure is not external to interaction but is accomplished within it (Garfinkel, 1967).

Erving Goffman’s work on face and ritual was foundational in articulating how interaction is governed by moral obligations. In Interaction Ritual (1967), he describes ”face” as the positive social value a person claims during interaction. Maintaining face is a cooperative effort: others must help sustain the fiction of coherence, propriety, or competence. When someone breaches these rituals—by interrupting, insulting, or failing to align with another’s footing—they risk social disapproval and initiate a need for repair (Goffman, 1956; 1961). In Relations in Public (1971), Goffman examined how ritualized conduct maintains moral boundaries. Secondary commentaries, such as Heritage’s chapter in The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (2013), emphasize how Goffman’s insights about the fragility of the interaction order underpin CA’s focus on preference organization and sequential repair.⁶ Scheff (2006) similarly argues that Goffman prefigured a sociology of emotions rooted in the management of shame and pride.

Goffman’s theory was extended by conversation analysts like Anita Pomerantz (1984a, 1984b), who explored how agreements and disagreements are shaped by a moral preference for affiliative over disaffiliative responses.⁸⁻⁹ For instance, delays or mitigations in agreement (”Yeah, I guess so”) index subtle forms of disalignment, revealing the interactional pressure to maintain moral solidarity. These ”preference structures” are not psychological tendencies but sequential patterns in talk-in-interaction. The very design of turn-taking—who goes next, and how—shapes the moral landscape of everyday life.

Jefferson’s corpus of work further explores how participants manage delicate disclosures, using laughter as a resource for ambiguity, affiliation, and repair. In a trio of studies (1984, 1985, 1988), she showed how laughter can soften blame, mitigate embarrassment, and signal alignment in ”troubles-talk.”¹⁰ Consider this excerpt from Jefferson (1984), where a speaker discloses personal difficulty while carefully managing the moral implications:

1. [Jefferson 1984: “On the Organization of Laughter”]

1 Nancy: I wa:s so:: depressed las’ night I sat 2 in front of the television an’ ate a 3 whole pint of Ha:agen Dazs. 4 ((laughs)) 5 Lottie: hh heh heh heh 6 Nancy: I know it’s ridiculous hh 7 Lottie: Oh::: Nan::cy.

Here, Nancy’s disclosure of “depression” and what might be heard as self-destructive eating is immediately followed by her own laughter (line 4), which frames the telling as at least partly non-serious. Lottie’s responsive laughter (line 5) aligns with this framing, treating the disclosure as laughable rather than alarming. Nancy’s subsequent “I know it’s ridiculous” (line 6) displays her orientation to potential moral judgment—acknowledging that her behavior could be seen as excessive while preemptively deflecting criticism. Lottie’s sympathetic “Oh::: Nan::cy” (line 7) offers affiliation without endorsement, navigating between supporting her friend and validating the concerning behavior. These moments are not merely expressive—they are organizationally consequential and morally loaded, demonstrating how participants collaboratively manage the delicate terrain of troubles-talk.

A full conversation analytic treatment of these issues appears in the work of Douglas Maynard and Jason Turowetz (2019), whose review of the ethnomethodological tradition centers face-work, accountability, and the moral order as central features of interaction.¹¹ In their essay, they argue that the ”interaction order is also a moral order,” governed by ”inference-rich environments” in which participants interpret each other’s conduct not only for informational content but for its moral implications.¹²

Maynard’s earlier empirical work demonstrates this point in action. His 1991 study of diagnostic conflict in genetic counseling shows how physicians manage face-threats when delivering difficult news.¹³ A typical sequence might involve hedging, delay, and re-framing—“This isn’t a death sentence”—to cushion the blow and share moral accountability for the interpretation. These conversational moves are not just strategic; they reflect a deep sensitivity to the asymmetrical risks borne by patients.

Face-work also operates in more routine settings. In their 1983 article, West and Zimmerman analyzed how men disproportionately interrupt women in public talk, often without subsequent repair.¹⁴ These interruptions are not merely rudeness; they assert control and define the moral parameters of conversational rights. In their later work, ”Doing Gender” (1987), West and Zimmerman argued that gender is not a fixed identity but a moral accountability structure maintained in everyday interaction.¹⁵ This framework has been extended by scholars like Stokoe (2012) who analyze how identities are made relevant and accountable in institutional discourse.¹⁶

Kitzinger and Wilkinson (2006) similarly explore the moral dimension of identity claims in talk. Their analysis of coming-out narratives reveals how speakers anticipate judgment, frame their disclosures with justifications, and navigate silence or non-recognition. Identity, in these cases, is not merely declared but interactionally achieved through moral labor. Even the absence of overt disapproval—what they call ”discursive erasure”—can function as a powerful moral repudiation.

What emerges across these studies is a view of social interaction as a moral terrain. Every utterance carries implications for face, accountability, and normative alignment. Participants are constantly engaged in a moral game of positioning: affiliating, distancing, excusing, blaming, forgiving. These acts are not reducible to the individual level; they are embedded in cultural expectations and institutional roles.

Ethnomethodology’s insistence on ”members’ methods”—those local, practical actions by which participants produce and recognize social order—thus becomes a moral inquiry: how do people preserve dignity, manage embarrassment, avoid offense, and hold each other accountable in everyday life? (Garfinkel, 1967).¹⁷ The answer is not found in abstract rules but in the practical, contingent work of talk. And this moral labor—whether in an emergency call, a medical diagnosis, or a dinner-table conversation—is what sustains the fragile, reflexive coherence of the social world.

SECTION V: Categorization, Typification, and the Social Distribution of Knowledge

Categorization is foundational to social life. Our encounters with others are organized by taken-for-granted assumptions about who people are, what they are doing, and what they are likely to do next. These assumptions—whether about gender, race, age, class, or social role—are not drawn from thin air. They are the products of deeply sedimented typifications, built over time and reinforced through interaction. Alfred Schutz called this the ”stock of knowledge at hand,” a shared cultural resource that enables us to navigate everyday encounters by applying pre-established interpretive schemes (Schutz 1967). Berger and Luckmann extended this insight in The Social Construction of Reality, arguing that these typifications constitute a key mechanism through which institutions are reproduced in everyday life (Berger & Luckmann 1966).

Ethnomethodologists took this idea further. For Garfinkel, such typifications were not merely internalized cultural schemas but were ”members’ methods”—practical, situational strategies people use to make sense of social life (Garfinkel 1967). Rather than treating categorization as a psychological process or cognitive function, ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EM/CA) insist on studying how categorization is accomplished in actual interaction.

Harvey Sacks pioneered this approach in his analysis of membership categorization devices (MCDs). Sacks argued that categories are not neutral descriptors; they are socially organized, inferentially rich resources for making sense of people. In a classic example, he showed how describing someone as ”the baby” in a family implies a whole array of expectations about their behavior, responsibility, and identity—even without explicitly stating those things (Sacks 1992: vol. I, ch. 7). These inferential networks are what Sacks called the ”standard relational pair,” such as ”mother and child” or ”doctor and patient,” which carry internal normative expectations. Crucially, these categorizations do not exist outside interaction but are brought into play and negotiated in the course of talk.

Elizabeth Stokoe has extended Sacks’s work into contemporary contexts, showing how everyday conversations invoke and contest identity categories in subtle ways. In her analysis of neighbor disputes and mediation sessions, Stokoe (2012) demonstrates how parties orient to normative expectations of what kinds of people ought to behave in what kinds of ways, and how these expectations shape the interactional possibilities available to them. Categorization is not only descriptive but morally implicative—it shapes what counts as reasonable, blameworthy, credible, or deviant. Similarly, Geoffrey Raymond and John Heritage have shown that categorization structures participation in institutional talk, with knowledge often distributed asymmetrically across roles, such as doctor/patient or teacher/student (Heritage & Raymond 2005).

This asymmetry is not only institutional—it is also racialized, gendered, and classed. Kevin Whitehead’s work on racial categorization in 911 calls shows how race is often included—or excluded—in caller descriptions in ways that reflect broader social expectations about who is seen as suspicious or out of place. In one analysis, a caller reports ”a guy walking down the street,” but when pressed adds ”he’s Black,” a detail initially withheld but made relevant through institutional prompts (Whitehead 2020). This moment crystallizes how categories are mobilized to justify suspicion, how race is interactionally made relevant, and how inequality is embedded in the machinery of everyday reporting.

Below is a transcript adapted from Whitehead’s work to illustrate these dynamics in practice:

Excerpt: 911 Call

Dispatcher: 911, what’s your emergency?

Caller: Uh, I just saw someone walking down the street, looked kinda suspicious.

Dispatcher: Can you describe the person?

Caller: Um, he was wearing dark clothes.

Dispatcher: Was the person male or female?

Caller: Male.

Dispatcher: Any other identifying features?

Caller: (pause) Uh… he was Black.

In this short exchange, we see categorization unfold in real time. The caller initially withholds racial information, but eventually offers it, not as a neutral descriptor but as an accountable feature that helps justify suspicion. This illustrates how categorizations are interactionally occasioned, morally charged, and institutionally consequential.

The social distribution of knowledge is another key focus of EM/CA. Heritage (2012) introduced the concept of epistemics—the analysis of how knowledge is distributed, claimed, and contested in conversation. Speakers routinely display what they know, how they know it, and what rights they have to speak on a given matter. These epistemic gradients are tied to social roles and categories; they structure who is treated as a knower, a witness, an authority, or a novice. Such distributions are not fixed but negotiated in talk, with participants delicately managing the boundaries of shared and unshared knowledge.

Taken together, categorization, typification, and knowledge asymmetries are not cognitive processes happening inside individual minds. They are socially situated, interactionally produced phenomena that reflect and reproduce broader social structures. By grounding these concepts in real-world talk, EM/CA respecifies the cognitive abstractions of mainstream social psychology and replaces them with empirically traceable, accountable practices.

SECTION VI: Agency and Accountability

Agency has long been a central theme in sociological social psychology, where it is typically framed in opposition to structural constraint. Individuals are said to exercise agency when they act independently, resist norms, or deviate from social scripts. But this conception of agency often remains abstract, inferred from actions rather than examined in the concrete details of those actions themselves. What EM/CA offers instead is a situated understanding of agency—one that treats it not as an inner attribute or capacity, but as an interactional achievement, observable in the ways that participants produce, display, negotiate, and contest responsibility in talk.

As with identity, EM/CA re-specifies agency by shifting analytic attention from internal states to publicly available practices. In conversation, participants routinely display orientations to accountability: they work to show that they are acting reasonably, that their conduct is understandable, and that they are entitled to say or do what they’re saying or doing. Agency is thus bound up with accountability; to act is also to render oneself accountable for having acted. Garfinkel made this point with his emphasis on the ”seen but unnoticed” background expectancies that underwrite all social actions (Garfinkel 1967). Actions are intelligible not simply because of what they are, but because of how they are made to fit within shared moral orders and recognizable interactional sequences.

Take, for instance, how individuals account for sensitive decisions in institutional contexts. In Maynard’s (1991) analysis of genetic counseling sessions, patients seeking amniocentesis often framed their decisions as personal and autonomous, yet also justified them in moral terms—as responsible parenting, prudent precaution, or deference to expert advice. Here, agency is interactionally constructed through the work of self-positioning, justification, and moral alignment. Similarly, Heritage and Clayman (2010) describe how interviewees manage accountability in broadcast journalism by answering questions in ways that deflect blame, claim credit, or present a coherent narrative of action. These displays of agency are always done in and through talk, shaped by the demands of the moment.

To illustrate this, consider the following adapted transcript from a welfare office interaction (Turowetz & Maynard 2020):

Excerpt: Welfare Intake Interview

Caseworker: And have you looked for work this week?

Client: Yeah, I—I been trying, I mean I went to, um, a couple places, like the hotel on State Street. They said they’d call.

Caseworker: Did you fill out any applications?

Client: I asked ’em, but they just took my name down. You know, sometimes they don’t give out applications.

In this exchange, the client accounts for their job-seeking behavior in a way that acknowledges the expectation to be ”trying,” even while implicitly managing the possibility of judgment or disbelief. The pauses (”I—I been trying”), the reference to specific locations (”the hotel on State Street”), and the explanation about application procedures all function as interactional strategies to construct a version of self as active and responsible. The speaker displays agency not through dramatic action, but by managing accountability within the institutional frame of the interview.

This focus on how people account for their actions—what they say, how they say it, and what alternatives they omit—offers a way to study moral agency without relying on cognitive or motivational assumptions. As Drew (1998) and Pomerantz (1986) have shown, accountability is tightly bound to the preference structures of conversation: when individuals provide accounts or explanations, they orient to preferred and dispreferred responses, often preemptively working to avoid blame. Agency, in this view, is not only a matter of action but of narrative positioning—how one tells the story of one’s action and constructs oneself as a moral subject.

The EM/CA perspective thus avoids the overgeneralizations of structuralist accounts and the psychologism of voluntarist theories. It offers instead a methodologically tractable way to study agency in situ, as an interactional phenomenon that is always embedded in—and shaped by—larger moral and institutional contexts.

SECTION VII: Face-work, Remedial Interchanges, and the Management of Social Accountability

One of the most consequential re-specifications ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA) brings to sociological social psychology is a rethinking of accountability—not as a function of inner conscience or social norms operating ”inside the head,” but as an observable achievement of interaction. In this view, people display their moral orientation to actions through talk, and they design their utterances to manage how those actions will be received, assessed, or remedied. As Goffman (1971) observed, face-work is not merely the maintenance of self-image but the negotiated display of one’s alignment with social expectations in real time . Ethnomethodology follows Goffman in treating face and accountability as fragile accomplishments, achieved with no guarantee of success and open to breakdowns that require repair. X

A crucial entry into this domain is Jefferson’s (1984) work on remedial interchanges—sequences of talk in which some moral breach is acknowledged and managed through apology, justification, excuse, or repair . Jefferson, like Goffman, was interested in the sequential structure of these interactions and how they unfold turn-by-turn. Drew (1992) extends this work by demonstrating how even the placement of an apology within a turn, or its delay across turns, can affect how it is received, upgraded, or rejected . These actions are often shaped by the stakes of the setting, the rights and obligations of participants, and the institutional framework in which the talk is embedded.

Consider the following example adapted from Drew and Heritage (1992), involving a witness in a courtroom setting:

Attorney: You said you saw the man leave the store?

Witness: Uh, well—I thought it was him. I might have been wrong.

Attorney: But you told the officer you were sure.

Witness: Yes… I mean, I—I was sure then, but thinking back now… maybe not.

Here, the witness performs a subtle form of retreat and mitigation. There is no formal apology, but there is a shifting of epistemic footing—a retreat from certainty to hedged reflection. Drew calls this a form of implicit remedial work—an interactional strategy for managing accountability without overtly conceding fault.

As Heritage and Raymond (2005) argue, accountability is deeply tied to epistemics—the rights and responsibilities of knowing in interaction. Speakers are often held accountable not only for what they do but for what they are taken to know. This is particularly visible in institutional settings such as courtrooms, medical interviews, and news interviews, where asymmetric distributions of knowledge and authority create uneven stakes for missteps or lapses.

Raymond (2006) and Maynard (1991) add further nuance to this analysis by showing that participants orient not only to local contingencies but also to category-bound expectations. That is, the degree to which someone is seen as accountable for a particular action is shaped by their identity category—what kind of person they are taken to be. Maynard’s work on interactions with parents of disabled children demonstrates how doctors manage their own and others’ accountability through careful displays of empathy, alignment, and institutional legitimacy.

Face-threatening acts are thus not uniformly distributed. As West and Zimmerman (1983, 2009) and Whitehead (2012) have shown, gendered and racialized interactional expectations structure who is more likely to be held accountable and how severely. The distribution of face risks and remedial burdens is not even—it follows power, identity, and institutional scripts. For instance, in Whitehead’s (2020) analysis of 911 calls, racial categorization is not merely descriptive; it invokes accountability structures for both caller and suspect, embedding racial inequality within the logic of institutional talk.

Recent scholarship has revisited Goffman’s conception of face to better integrate it into CA’s empirical program. Heritage and Clayman (2024) argue that while early CA resisted Goffman’s notion of face for its presumed reliance on internal motivational states, it is possible—and analytically fruitful—to treat face as a thoroughly ”emic” phenomenon. Face considerations are made visible through participants’ public, accountable actions as they navigate rejections, disagreements, and affiliative moves. Practices such as delay, mitigation, and displays of affiliation are not merely individual psychological defenses but reflexive features of interactional sequences that sustain a normative order of social coordination. Heritage and Clayman further suggest that the asymmetries captured in preference organization—such as the preference for agreement over disagreement—align closely with the moral imperatives of face-work, providing a normative substrate for interaction that is indigenous to participants’ methods of action and inference.

These insights reconfigure the mainstream psychological view of accountability as an internalized moral compass. In EMCA, accountability is not assumed but displayed. It is produced in and through interaction, often under conditions of ambiguity, asymmetry, and high stakes. This reframing has profound implications—not only for how we study micro-interaction but also for how we understand power, inequality, and resistance in everyday life.

SECTION VIII: Resistance, Subversion, and Strategic Action

While Section VII explored how agency is interactionally accomplished through displays of accountability and normative alignment, this section turns to its more oppositional forms—resistance, subversion, and strategic redirection. Resistance, in this frame, is not understood primarily as large-scale protest, defiance, or insubordination. Rather, ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EM/CA) uncover a pervasive and situated practice of resistance embedded within the sequential fabric of everyday talk. Resistance is not a marginal or secondary phenomenon—it is part of the ordinary organization of social action. Speakers resist not only power and institutional authority but also categories, obligations, moral attributions, and epistemic asymmetries. The interactional terrain is a space where structure is negotiated, refigured, and at times unraveled.

Resistance as Distributed, Procedural, and Pragmatic

Consider a counseling session adapted from Kitzinger and Frith (1999):

Therapist: So have you been able to talk to him about it?

Client: (0.4) Not really.

Therapist: What’s holding you back?

Client: I dunno. It’s not just me. He’s not exactly open either.

The client’s response illustrates what we might call diffuse accountability. Rather than offering a direct explanation, she distributes responsibility by implicating the other party. Her use of ”it’s not just me” reframes the therapeutic problem as relational rather than individual. This subtle reframing resists the therapist’s implied focus on personal agency and instead introduces an alternative analytic frame—one in which communicative failure is jointly produced. The client does not openly defy the therapist’s interpretive authority but respecifies the terms of evaluation. This is a form of soft resistance—reflexively managing moral accountability without triggering adversarial escalation .

This dynamic recurs in clinical and institutional settings. Maynard (1989) documents how parents in pediatric consultations frequently hedge, delay, or deflect uptake of doctors’ recommendations. For example, a doctor may propose a course of treatment, and the parent responds with: ”Well, we’ll see how it goes,” or ”I guess we could try that.” These are not refusals, but calibrated non-alignments—forms of ”passive resistance” that preserve face while introducing friction. Such responses are moral acts: they contest epistemic asymmetries and preserve the client’s capacity for agency and judgment.

Resistance is thus not always enacted through assertiveness. As Bogdana Humă and Geoffrey Raymond (2023) emphasize, resistance can be manifested through silence, laughter, minimal responses, or even ”uncooperative cooperation”—forms that maintain sequential relevance while withholding full endorsement. Resistance is sequentially achieved, structurally shaped, and interactionally negotiated .

Resistance in Narrative and Positioning

Storytelling provides another key site for resistance. As Bamberg (1997) and Georgakopoulou (2007) have shown, narratives are not neutral recitations of past events but moral performances in which speakers position themselves and others. A narrator may cast themselves as agent, victim, or reluctant participant—thereby resisting blame or asserting moral legitimacy. This is particularly evident in accounts of conflict, illness, trauma, or institutional encounter, where the framing of events becomes a subtle form of resistance to imposed readings. Speakers not only tell what happened but instruct their audience on how it should be understood.

In her work on racial categorizations, Whitehead (2020) shows how speakers contest being racialized by resisting category membership through explicit denials, rejections, or ironic uptake. These ”category resistance devices” demonstrate that identity categories are not simply ascribed but negotiated in situ, and that speakers have repertoires for resisting unwanted classification .

Resistance in Institutional Talk

In their analysis of courtroom interactions, Goodwin and Goodwin (1990) reveal how participants resist institutional framing through embodied displays, interruptions, or recontextualization of questions. Institutional talk often imposes specific relevancies—what counts as an answer, what counts as evidence, who has the right to speak. Participants may comply with the format but resist its assumptions. For example, a witness may preface an answer with ”Well, I’m not sure what you’re getting at,” or ”That depends on what you mean by…“—introducing ambiguity, reframing, or deferral. These practices resist the procedural logic of the institution while maintaining formal participation.

Even question design itself can cue or constrain resistance. Heritage (2005) notes that negatively polarized questions (e.g., ”Didn’t you…?“) constrain preferred responses, making resistance more delicate. To challenge such a question is to challenge both its presupposition and its form. Strategic resistance thus requires interactional skill.

Resistance as Interactional Accomplishment

Taken together, these examples challenge conventional notions of resistance as transgressive or heroic. Instead, they foreground resistance as routine, moral, and situated. Speakers deploy resistance to manage face, realign interactional trajectories, and contest institutional scripts. As Schegloff (1992) argues, what counts as resistance must be located within the sequential organization of action. It is not a property of individuals but an accomplishment of interaction.

This re-specification of resistance is crucial for sociological social psychology. Rather than viewing resistance as a response to power, EM/CA treats it as co-constitutive of moral order. Resistance is not external to structure—it is one of the means by which structure is interactively maintained, negotiated, and at times revised. The social world is not merely reproduced through conformity, but also through the calibrated frictions of resistance.

SECTION IX: The Structure of Interaction and the Distribution of Power

The ethnomethodological and conversation analytic tradition has long emphasized that the organization of everyday talk is not arbitrary but deeply structured. Turn-taking, sequence organization, and preference structures form the bedrock of this organization. Yet far from being morally or politically neutral, these structures are consequential for how power is distributed, how dominance is exercised, and how resistance is managed in interaction. In this section, we explore how the formal organization of talk can reproduce asymmetries of authority, constrain participation, and shape outcomes across both mundane and institutional settings.

Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson’s (1974) model of turn-taking posits that conversation is organized to minimize overlap and silence. Turns are allocated through locally managed procedures, allowing for orderly participation. But this orderliness does not guarantee equality. As numerous analysts have shown, powerful participants often exploit the rules of turn-taking to dominate interaction. Interruptions, delayed responses, and topic control become subtle mechanisms through which authority is exercised and maintained.

A foundational study by Zimmerman and West (1975) illustrates this dynamic. They found that in mixed-gender conversations, men were significantly more likely to interrupt women, not merely to clarify or affirm, but to take control of the floor. These interruptions were not isolated events but systematic patterns that indexed gendered asymmetries in conversational rights and expectations. In other words, the gendered dynamics of power were accomplished through the seemingly neutral structures of turn-taking.

Consider this illustrative excerpt adapted from Zimmerman and West:

(1) \[Adapted from Zimmerman & West]

1 Woman: I was just saying that I think--

2 Man: No, but what you don’t get is--

3 Woman: \[But let me finish--

4 Man: --you’re missing the main point. It’s not about that.

Here, the man interrupts before the woman completes her thought, asserting epistemic and conversational authority. The overlap (line 3) indicates her attempt to reclaim the floor, but she is cut off again. Such interruptions are not only structural violations but moral ones: they deny the speaker the right to be heard, undermining their agency and epistemic status.

More recent work has expanded this analysis to racialized and institutional interactions. Kevin Whitehead (2009) analyzed South African talk shows to show how racial categorization practices are subtly maintained in callers’ talk and in the host’s management of interaction. Whitehead demonstrates that the categorization of speakers as "Black" or "White" is often achieved through tacit references, pronunciation, or topic framing. These practices position participants within a moral order that reflects broader racial hierarchies, even when race is not explicitly mentioned.

Similarly, Drew and Heritage (1992) showed how question design in institutional settings can reproduce asymmetries between professionals and clients. In courtroom examinations, news interviews, or medical consultations, questions are often formulated to constrain possible responses, assert presuppositions, or elicit agreement. This restricts the recipient’s interactional latitude and often reinforces institutional authority.

(2) \[Simulated Medical Encounter, adapted from Heritage & Maynard]

1 Doctor: You’re still having the headaches, right?

2 Patient: Uh, yeah, mostly in the morning.

3 Doctor: And you’re taking the medication as prescribed?

4 Patient: (.) Mostly.

5 Doctor: Mostly?

The doctor’s yes/no interrogatives presume shared knowledge and constrain the patient’s responses. The repetition of "Mostly?" in line 5 functions as an accountability move, challenging the adequacy of the patient’s prior answer and reasserting medical authority. Even in this brief excerpt, we see how turn design and sequential positioning reproduce epistemic asymmetries and moral expectations.

These examples illustrate that power in interaction is not only about who speaks the most but about how the organization of talk enables or constrains particular forms of participation. Preferences for agreement, practices of repair, and topic initiation rights all carry normative weight. Participants orient to these structures as moral phenomena: violations require explanation, resistance must be delicately managed, and authority must be justified.

This does not mean that power is fixed. On the contrary, EM/CA reveals that power is constantly negotiated in interaction. Resistance may be voiced through minimal responses, delays, or shifts in footing. Affiliative alignment can be withheld, and accountability may be strategically deflected. Participants are never mere rule-followers; they are improvisers within a structured field.

Thus, EM/CA provides tools for analyzing how social structure is enacted and contested in micro-interaction. It shows that inequality is not merely a macro-condition but an ongoing accomplishment. By attending to the fine details of turn design, sequence organization, and preference structures, analysts can reveal the moral architecture of everyday life—an architecture that is built, maintained, and sometimes transformed in talk.

In sum, the structure of interaction is not merely procedural; it is political. It is the terrain on which voice, recognition, and participation are won or denied. Through this lens, EM/CA offers not just a method of analysis, but a moral and political stance: that the everyday matters, and that within the smallest moments of talk lie the seeds of domination and resistance alike.

SECTION X: Social Categorization and the Racialized Moral Order

One of the most consequential applications of EM/CA is the analysis of how race, ethnicity, and other social categories are constructed and made relevant in interaction. Rather than treating race as a demographic variable or a stable identity, EM/CA examines how racial categories are invoked, resisted, and negotiated in the unfolding of everyday talk. This approach builds on Harvey Sacks's foundational work on Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA), while extending it into a critical domain: the reproduction and contestation of racialized moral orders.

Kevin Whitehead (2013) has been at the forefront of this work, arguing that talk about race is never neutral. In his analysis of South African radio call-in shows, Whitehead shows how speakers deploy racial categories indirectly, using formulations like "you people" or invoking supposed cultural differences to make racially charged arguments without explicitly naming race. This phenomenon—often described as "talking race without saying race"—reveals how participants manage the moral accountability of racial discourse. By avoiding explicit labels, speakers can disavow prejudice while still reproducing racial hierarchies.

Whitehead's work demonstrates that racial categorization is not merely descriptive but performative. When a speaker says, "Those people don't value education," they are not simply stating an opinion; they are positioning an entire group in a moral hierarchy, attributing blame, and inviting agreement or disalignment. EM/CA enables analysts to track how such statements are designed, responded to, and contested in real time.

An example drawn from Whitehead's (2013) data illustrates this process:

\[Excerpt: Radio Talk Show Call-In]

1. Caller: I'm just saying, in certain areas, there's a lack of respect for the law.

2. Host: Are you referring to any specific communities?

3. Caller: Well, I think we all know which areas I'm talking about.

4. Host: Could you clarify?

5. Caller: I'm not trying to be racist, but... you know, townships.

This exchange demonstrates how racial categorization is managed interactionally. The caller initially makes a vague moral claim, which the host challenges with a request for specificity. The caller then invokes shared knowledge (”we all know”), relying on the audience to infer the racialized reference. When pressed again, the caller issues a disclaimer (”I’m not trying to be racist”) before naming a spatial category (”townships”) that carries racial connotations in the South African context. Each move displays orientation to the moral stakes of racial discourse, while still accomplishing categorization.

Similarly, Whitehead and Lerner (2009) analyze how racial references are built into interactional sequences, such as jokes, complaints, or justifications. In one case, a speaker refers to a neighborhood becoming ”unsafe,” and only later implies that this is due to the arrival of a particular racial group. These delayed categorizations allow speakers to test the waters, gauge recipient alignment, and deflect accountability.

This form of racial discourse can be linked to what Bonilla-Silva (2006) describes as "color-blind racism"—a mode of talk that maintains racial inequality while disavowing racist intent. EM/CA offers a powerful methodological lens for studying how this operates in practice. It allows us to see not just what people say about race, but how they say it, when they say it, and with what consequences for the interactional moral order.

In institutional contexts, these dynamics become even more fraught. Stokoe (2009) has shown how mediators and housing officers navigate racial and ethnic references in neighborhood disputes. Even when institutional scripts discourage explicit racial talk, participants find ways to index race through language about "culture," "values," or "behavior." These references are often made indirectly, with pauses, hedges, and disclaimers that signal their delicacy. The institutional imperative to remain neutral or non-discriminatory interacts with the participant's perceived need to explain or justify complaints, leading to highly structured forms of racialized accountability.

The moral order of racial categorization also plays out in classroom settings, police encounters, and medical consultations—domains where EM/CA researchers are beginning to map how participants negotiate the tension between individual description and categorical inference. When a teacher says, "You people always come in late," or a doctor asks a patient, "Do you understand English well enough?", these are not neutral queries. They are actions that invoke, and often re-inscribe, racialized assumptions and power differentials.

Crucially, EM/CA does not treat these moments as reflections of individual prejudice. Rather, they are seen as sites where institutional routines, societal ideologies, and moral expectations converge. The racial order is not merely reproduced through overt acts of discrimination, but through the everyday work of categorization, implication, and inference.

By bringing this analytic focus to bear on race, EM/CA contributes to broader debates in critical race theory, sociology of race, and discourse studies. It offers tools for identifying the mechanisms by which race is made consequential, contested, and reconfigured in talk-in-interaction. And in doing so, it opens up new possibilities for understanding, challenging, and transforming the micro-foundations of racial inequality.

SECTION XI: Institutions as Accomplishment

Mainstream sociological approaches to institutions often treat them as macro-level structures—durable social arrangements that exert force on individuals and constrain action. Whether theorized as rational bureaucracies (Weber), habitus-infused fields (Bourdieu), or functional subsystems (Parsons), institutions are depicted as existing prior to interaction. They are posited as environments within which people act, rarely as accomplishments of interaction itself. In contrast, ethnomethodology and conversation analysis respecify institutions not as abstract social systems, but as ongoing, situated accomplishments—realized moment-by-moment in and through talk-in-interaction.

This reorientation stems from Garfinkel’s insistence that institutions are not external to action but are ”in the details” of members’ methods. In his classic studies of juries, mortuary workers, and record-keeping practices, Garfinkel showed that what passes for institutional order is the product of members’ work, using locally available resources to make their actions accountable as institutionally appropriate. Boden and Zimmerman (1991) extended this logic in their pioneering volume Talk and Social Structure, arguing that institutional arrangements are made visible and actionable through interactional sequences, participation frameworks, and normative orientations. As Boden puts it in The Business of Talk, ”institutionality is situated, locally managed, and interactionally achieved” (Boden 1994:10) .

My own research on emergency medicine and psychiatric interviews attempted to show how organizational routines and institutional identities are produced in real time. For example, in studies of paramedic-nurse interaction (Mellinger 1994), dispatch communication (Mellinger and Zimmerman 1998), and psychiatric interviews (Mellinger 1995), I examined how institutional directives, medical authority, and client status are interactionally negotiated. Timothy Halkowski’s work on health communication (Halkowski and Gill 2010) has further developed the analysis of how patients and providers navigate epistemic asymmetries in medical settings, while the broader collaborative research agenda at UCSB (Maynard, Clayman, Halkowski, and Kidwell 2010) has mapped how language and social interaction research constitutes an interdisciplinary field with distinctive methodological commitments. These studies follow a broader EM/CA tradition that views institutional facts—like a diagnosis, a referral, or a police dispatch order—as accomplishments rather than givens. These ”facts” must be made observable and reportable in ways that will pass scrutiny within the bureaucratic system. The transformation of lived experience into codable records is not self-evident but requires members’ skilled application of institutionally recognizable procedures.

One key feature of institutional interaction is what Garfinkel termed ”reflexive accountability”—the idea that actions are simultaneously shaped by and shape the institutional context. When a nurse offers a report to a physician, or when a caseworker updates a client’s file, they are not just conveying information but actively maintaining the organization’s interpretive order. This reflexivity is not a contamination of objective data; it is how institutional reality gets done. As Heritage (1984) puts it, ”institutions are in the details of ordinary conduct, which they both organize and are organized by.”

Consider the following excerpt from a medical consultation, adapted from Heritage and Maynard (2006), which demonstrates how institutional identities and epistemic asymmetries are managed through the sequential organization of talk:

1. [Medical Consultation, adapted from Heritage & Maynard]

1 Doctor: So what brings you in today?

2 Patient: Well I’ve been having these headaches, (0.4) um:: 3 for about two weeks now?

4 Doctor: Mm hm,

5 Patient: And they’re getting worse I think.

6 Doctor: Okay. And where exactly do you feel the pain.

7 Patient: It’s like (.) here, (gestures) behind my eyes mostly.

8 Doctor: Right. And have you taken anything for it.

9 Patient: Just Tylenol. It doesn’t really help.

10 Doctor: Okay. Let me take a look.

In this brief exchange, we see how institutional roles are produced through turn design and sequence organization. The doctor’s opening question (“So what brings you in today?”) is recognizably a medical history-taking initiation—it positions the patient as someone with a “complainable” and the doctor as someone authorized to receive and assess such complaints. The patient’s response is formatted as a candidate medical problem, complete with temporal framing (“for about two weeks”) and trajectory description (“getting worse”). The doctor’s “Mm hm” (line 4) is a continuer that invites elaboration while withholding diagnostic assessment. The subsequent questions (lines 6, 8) display medical reasoning—localization of symptoms, treatment history—while the closing “Let me take a look” shifts the encounter from verbal to physical examination, reasserting medical authority. Throughout, the institution of medicine is not a backdrop but an ongoing accomplishment, realized through these recognizably “medical” ways of asking, answering, and transitioning.

Institutions, then, are not inert structures but lived sites of ongoing practical reasoning, moral accountability, and organizational storytelling. Their stability is an achievement, not a given. As Drew and Heritage (1992) demonstrate in Talk at Work, even the most routinized encounters—emergency calls, courtroom proceedings, medical triage—are suffused with contingencies that must be interactionally managed. Institutional authority is not automatic; it must be ratified, challenged, and repaired through ordinary talk. And institutional talk is not monolithic; it is context-sensitive, role-laden, and shaped by the sequential logic of conversation.

The interactional respecification of institutions has far-reaching implications. It means that institutional change—such as reforms in welfare services, policing, or healthcare—cannot be understood solely at the level of policy or structure. Such change depends on alterations in the talk, routines, and participation frameworks through which institutions are enacted. Conversely, institutional continuity is sustained through the sedimentation of interactional practices that reproduce existing orders. EM/CA thus offers a powerful lens for understanding not only how institutions constrain individuals, but how they are themselves constituted and contested in the micropolitics of everyday action.

SECTION XII: Inequality and the Interaction Order

In mainstream sociological social psychology, inequality is often treated as a structural variable that exerts influence on individual behavior and perception. Theories such as social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1986), status characteristics theory (Berger et al. 1977), and expectation states theory (Ridgeway 2001) posit that categorical distinctions—gender, race, class—shape interaction by structuring expectations, shaping role behavior, and organizing hierarchies of competence. In these frameworks, the relationship between macro-level inequalities and micro-level behaviors is often cast in terms of internalized norms, role socialization, or status beliefs.

In contrast, ethnomethodology and conversation analysis re-specify inequality as something produced in interaction, through the local, moment-to-moment methods by which participants orient to, manage, and reproduce differences in power, credibility, and entitlement. Inequality is not simply ”there” in the background of talk; it is accomplished in and through talk.⁽¹⁾ This approach demands that we examine not how race, gender, or class ”affect” behavior, but how they are made relevant, taken up, or resisted within particular interactional episodes.

West and Zimmerman’s (1983) pioneering study of interruptions between men and women in doctor-patient consultations exemplifies this shift. They show how men routinely interrupt female interlocutors in ways that assert dominance and claim conversational authority—an enactment of gender not reducible to role expectations but accomplished sequentially, turn by turn. Their later concept of ”doing gender” (1987) reframes gender as an ongoing achievement rather than a fixed attribute.⁽²⁾ This framework has since inspired analogous studies of how racial, classed, or ability-based identities are enacted and resisted through interactional practice.

Clayman and Turowetz (2023) offer a wide-ranging synthesis of research demonstrating how social categories—race, gender, disability, and class—are made consequential in interaction. Categories are ”inference-rich,” providing participants with resources for action, interpretation, and accountability, and their invocation can sustain or challenge unequal relations of power. For instance, CA studies have documented how racial categories are introduced or resisted in police stops, courtroom testimony, and medical encounters, and how gendered and ableist assumptions shape conversational rights, interruptions, and repair (Clayman & Turowetz 2023, pp. 150–176). These findings show that inequality is not merely a macro-structural backdrop but an interactional accomplishment, embedded in the fine-grained procedures of talk. Integrating their synthesis strengthens our argument that sociological social psychology cannot ignore the moment-by-moment constitution of domination, privilege, and exclusion, nor treat categories as static attributes of individuals. Instead, following EM/CA, it must examine how these categories become relevant, are negotiated, and are contested in actual encounters, thereby linking the micro-organization of talk to broader social stratification.

A compelling example comes from Kevin Whitehead’s (2009) analysis of race categorization in 911 calls. In the sequence below, a caller initially refers to ”some guys” but is guided by the dispatcher toward specifying their race:

1 Caller: there’s uh, some uh (.) black guys walkin’ around

2 Dispatcher: black males?

3 Caller: yeah, just wanderin’ through here

4 Dispatcher: okay, how many black males?

Here, racial categorization is not simply expressed—it is prompted, confirmed, and institutionally recorded. The dispatcher’s uptake of ”black guys” as ”black males” is not value-neutral; it encodes a culturally available suspicion. Whitehead shows that the category ”black male” is not merely descriptive—it is indexical to criminal threat in a broader cultural grammar.⁽³⁾

These practices unfold not only in emergency calls but across institutional and mundane talk. Elizabeth Stokoe (2012) has shown how categories like ”single mother” or ”benefits claimant” in mediation calls carry evaluative implications that shape outcomes. Categorization is not a mirror of demographic facts—it is a moral action with practical consequences.⁽⁴⁾

In clinical encounters, Heritage and Raymond (2005) document how asymmetries in epistemic access (who knows what) are managed delicately: clients are asked for information that professionals already know, only to later reclaim authority through summary or reinterpretation. These shifts in footing and knowledge display maintain professional dominance while preserving the appearance of neutrality.⁽⁵⁾

These findings invite a rethinking of power: it is not only institutional or discursive—it is sequential, embodied, and accountable. A caseworker who delays acknowledgment, a judge who withholds repair, or a social worker who re-voices a client’s story in bureaucratic language—each performs inequality through interaction.⁽⁶⁾ In this sense, inequality is a practical accomplishment.

Anne Warfield Rawls and Waverly Duck (2020) have extended this analysis to show how racism operates through what they call “tacit” interactional mechanisms. In Tacit Racism, they demonstrate that high-status Black individuals often encounter systematic non-recognition of their self-presentations—what Du Bois called “double consciousness” is respecified as an interactional phenomenon in which competent presentations of self are met with “fractured reflections” that fail to ratify the presented identity. This work, which received both the Cooley and Cox Book Awards, brings EMCA into direct dialogue with classical sociology of race while maintaining rigorous attention to the sequential organization of everyday encounters. Together with the Black Lives Matter volume (Rawls, Whitehead, and Duck 2020), this research demonstrates that the study of inequality through interaction is not merely an academic exercise but an urgent contribution to understanding how domination operates in its most intimate and consequential forms.

SECTION XIII: Reflexivity, Indexicality, and the Situated Production of Knowledge

One of the most distinctive and radical contributions of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EM/CA) to sociological theory is the emphasis on reflexivity and indexicality. These concepts fundamentally challenge traditional understandings of objectivity, meaning, and the nature of social order. While mainstream social science often presumes the analyst's distance from the object of inquiry, EM/CA begins with the assumption that both participants and analysts are embedded in, and reflexively reproduce, the very social worlds they seek to understand.

Reflexivity, in Garfinkel’s (1967) formulation, refers not to introspection or cognitive awareness, but to the constitutive feature of social actions: that they are both shaped by and shape the social settings in which they occur. In other words, actions are context-shaped and context-renewing. A greeting is shaped by the sequential and relational context in which it occurs, and simultaneously contributes to the maintenance of that relationship. This reflexivity is not a philosophical abstraction; it is empirically observable in the turn-by-turn organization of talk.

Indexicality, likewise, refers to the idea that the meaning of any utterance or action is bound to its local context. There is no view from nowhere, no purely general statement. Even categories such as ”fact,” “rule,” or ”reason” must be understood as practical accomplishments whose meanings are worked out in situ. This challenges the traditional sociological search for general laws or invariant structures, replacing it with a focus on the local, contingent, and situated production of meaning.

These concepts are not just theoretical assertions; they have methodological implications. In EM/CA research, the analyst must attend closely to the endogenous orientations of participants—to how they themselves produce, recognize, and repair meaning. The classic breaching experiments, such as Garfinkel’s instructions to students to act as boarders in their own homes, revealed the fragility and reflexivity of taken-for-granted social norms. Participants oriented to the breach not merely as confusion, but as a moral transgression. These reactions underscored that social order is not guaranteed by rules alone, but by the continual production of accountable action.

A clear example of reflexivity and indexicality at work can be seen in Zimmerman’s (1992) analysis of 911 calls. In one call, a woman attempts to report a domestic disturbance but struggles to categorize the situation:

"Caller: Uh, I don't know if this is an emergency, but my boyfriend, he—he won’t leave."

"Dispatcher: Is he threatening you or has he hurt you?"

"Caller: No, it’s not like that. I just—he’s yelling and I feel scared."

The caller's hesitancy and formulation display the interactional dilemma of producing an account that fits the institutional categories of the emergency system. She is not simply reporting facts, but reflexively constructing a version of events that will be recognizable and actionable to the dispatcher. The dispatcher, for their part, orients to the institutional requirements for categorizing the event—"Is he threatening you or has he hurt you?"—which frames what counts as a legitimate emergency. The interaction illustrates the indexicality of "threat," "emergency," and even "fear," all of which must be made relevant and actionable within the call.

Such examples show that meaning is not transmitted from one speaker to another but collaboratively produced. Every utterance is saturated with assumptions about what is known, what is relevant, and what is at stake. The participants’ mutual intelligibility is itself an accomplishment, vulnerable to breakdowns and in need of repair.

Maynard and Turowetz (2019) build on this insight in their work on autism diagnoses. Their landmark book Autistic Intelligence: Interaction, Individuality, and the Challenges of Diagnosis (2022)—winner of the 2024 Melvin Pollner Prize from the American Sociological Association’s Section on Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis—represents a culmination of this research program. They show how clinicians and parents co-construct the child’s behavior as either within or outside the boundaries of typical development. Through extended interview and observational sequences, clinicians interpret behaviors like lack of eye contact, echolalia, or tantrums in light of diagnostic criteria—but these interpretations are negotiated, resisted, or reframed by parents. For example, when a clinician notes, "He seems not to respond to his name," a parent may respond, "He does, just not all the time." The diagnostic process is thus not merely an application of criteria, but a situated negotiation of meaning, accountability, and institutional authority. As Maynard and Turowetz demonstrate, autism is not a stable category but an outcome of complex interactional processes involving professionals, children, families, and the social and clinical environments they inhabit. Reflexivity is visible in how each party adapts their discourse in light of what has just been said, and indexicality is evident in how the meaning of behavioral cues depends on the local interactional frame.

This orientation to reflexivity and indexicality invites a broader critique of social science methodology. It challenges the idea that variables can be abstracted from context, that surveys can unproblematically capture beliefs, or that experiments reveal timeless truths. Instead, EM/CA insists on the situated character of all knowledge, including the knowledge produced by analysts themselves. This does not entail relativism, but a rigorous attentiveness to the conditions under which claims are made intelligible and accountable.

Finally, reflexivity and indexicality bear directly on questions of power and inequality. Who gets to define what counts as relevant? Whose framing of events is treated as authoritative? In institutional settings—from police encounters to medical consultations—participants with greater institutional standing often control the framing devices, rendering their interpretations normative. EM/CA allows us to trace how these asymmetries are produced in real time, and how they might be challenged.

In sum, reflexivity and indexicality are not just technical terms; they are analytic commitments that define the EM/CA approach. They orient us to the local production of meaning, the accountability of action, and the co-construction of social order. They provide the conceptual grounding for a sociology that is neither abstract nor deterministic, but richly empirical and attuned to the lived texture of interaction. In doing so, they allow us to see how everyday practices—mundane, fleeting, often overlooked—are the very substance through which society is made and remade.

SECTION XIV: Epistemics and the Moral Economy of Knowledge

One of the most important innovations in recent EMCA research has been the analytic focus on epistemics—how knowledge is distributed, claimed, challenged, and deferred in talk. Moving away from mentalist assumptions that treat knowledge as a private possession or cognitive state, EMCA conceptualizes knowledge as a publicly displayed, morally organized, and interactionally occasioned resource. What counts as knowledge, who is entitled to it, and how it is managed in sequence are not abstract questions, but practical issues that participants must resolve in real time.

It is important to acknowledge that this respecification of knowledge and cognition was developed not only at Santa Barbara but through parallel innovations in British scholarship. The Discursive Psychology tradition at Loughborough University, pioneered by Jonathan Potter and Derek Edwards, has been central to demonstrating how psychological phenomena traditionally treated as internal mental states—memory, emotion, attitude, belief—are better understood as discursive accomplishments. Their work shows how “remembering,” “being angry,” or “having an opinion” are not cognitive events but situated actions, designed for particular interactional purposes and accountable within specific sequential contexts. Graham Button’s (1991) edited volume Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences similarly articulated the respecification program as a broad interdisciplinary agenda. These British contributions, alongside the Santa Barbara School, demonstrate that EMCA’s transformation of social psychology is genuinely international—a collaborative intellectual achievement that transcends any single institutional home.

John Heritage (2012) offers a foundational framework for understanding epistemics in interaction, distinguishing between epistemic status (the relative rights of speakers to know something) and epistemic stance (how those rights are asserted, downgraded, or deferred in the moment). This distinction allows researchers to track how questions, assessments, and assertions reveal shifting configurations of knowledge and authority. For instance, a speaker may hedge a declarative claim—"I think it’s supposed to rain"—to mark their uncertain stance, even when their epistemic status (e.g., having just watched the weather report) grants them stronger rights. These nuanced moves reveal the moral texture of epistemic work.

The management of epistemic asymmetries is central to many institutional interactions. Tanya Stivers (2005) analyzed pediatric consultations in which parents’ experiential knowledge of their child’s health intersects with the physician’s medical expertise. While patients often have first-hand access to symptoms, physicians are authorized to render diagnoses. These asymmetries are managed delicately through formulations, hedges, and preference organization. For example:

Extract 1 (Stivers, 2005):

Doctor: And she hasn’t had a fever, you don’t think?

Parent: No… just kind of warm maybe, but not… you know… not a real fever.

Here, the doctor formulates a negative question, inviting confirmation while subtly proposing a diagnostic direction. The parent’s hesitancy and qualification display epistemic caution, reinforcing the doctor’s interpretive authority without fully ceding experiential knowledge. Such exchanges illustrate how medical knowledge is not merely delivered but collaboratively produced through interactional work.

Heritage and Raymond (2005) extend this analysis by showing how knowledge claims are designed to manage both epistemic and moral rights. In everyday conversation, asserting knowledge about someone else’s experience can be intrusive or presumptuous. Questions like ”Are you okay?” or ”Did that bother you?” must navigate both informational gaps and moral territory. Responses are similarly constrained—not only by what is known, but by what can be said without breaching propriety or exposing vulnerability.

These micro-level dynamics have broader implications. In legal contexts, for example, Rossano (2013) shows how courtroom interactions construct epistemic hierarchies through question design, witness responses, and the ratification of certain knowledge claims. Who gets to ask questions, what kinds of answers are acceptable, and whose testimony is treated as credible are structured not only by institutional rules but by interactional practices. Similarly, plea bargains, cross-examinations, and judicial inquiries are organized around the production and policing of epistemic authority.

EMCA’s attention to epistemics also intersects with feminist and critical race scholarship. Miranda Fricker’s (2007) concept of ”epistemic injustice” highlights how individuals may be discredited as knowers due to identity-based prejudices. Celia Kitzinger (2008), building on both CA and feminist theory, analyzes how survivors of sexual assault encounter systematic doubt and routinized skepticism in their efforts to report violence. Through question design, interruptions, and repair sequences, institutional agents may implicitly deny the speaker’s epistemic authority, reinforcing trauma through procedural disrespect.

This line of analysis has been extended powerfully by Anne Warfield Rawls and Waverly Duck (2020) in their landmark work Tacit Racism, which demonstrates how epistemic injustice operates through the systematic non-recognition of Black self-presentations in everyday interaction. When high-status Black individuals present themselves competently, they often encounter what Rawls and Duck call “fractured reflections”—responses that fail to recognize their presented identity, forcing them into double-consciousness. This work, along with the edited volume Black Lives Matter: Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analytic Studies of Race and Systemic Racism in Everyday Interaction (Rawls, Whitehead, and Duck 2020), brings EMCA into direct dialogue with Du Bois and critical race theory, revealing how racial domination operates through the mundane mechanics of epistemic non-recognition.

Turowetz and Maynard (2010) further demonstrate how epistemic and moral considerations converge in the delivery of medical diagnoses, particularly of life-altering conditions such as autism. Their analysis reveals how physicians manage the tension between clinical authority and familial rights to interpret and respond to diagnostic information. Extracts from these encounters show the careful calibration of stance, affect, and timing:

Extract 2 (Turowetz & Maynard, 2010):

Doctor: So, based on the assessments and everything we’ve observed, I’d… I’d say that we’re looking at something on the autism spectrum.

Parent: …Okay.

This brief exchange is densely layered. The physician uses epistemic hedging (”I’d say,” “we’re looking at”) to soften the delivery of a definitive judgment, while still asserting diagnostic authority. The parent’s minimal response—“Okay”—may register as passive, but also reflects the overwhelming moral and emotional stakes of the moment. Here, knowledge is not a neutral commodity—it is freighted with implications for identity, responsibility, and future planning.

In each of these examples, epistemics is revealed to be a deeply moral domain. Participants do not merely trade information—they manage the rights to know, the obligations to tell, and the consequences of believing or disbelieving. These are not abstract philosophical concerns, but lived interactional realities with profound social impact.

The epistemic domain is also a site of resistance and repair. Speakers may contest epistemic asymmetries, assert local knowledge, or reframe expertise. In bilingual or cross-cultural encounters, such as those analyzed by Galina Bolden (2009), participants navigate competing epistemic frameworks, drawing on linguistic and cultural resources to assert their standing. In doing so, they challenge institutional or cultural assumptions about who is entitled to speak, to know, and to be heard.

To study epistemics in EMCA is to study the politics of recognition. It is to ask how people are positioned as legitimate knowers, how authority is enacted and negotiated, and how moral hierarchies are sustained or contested through turn-by-turn talk. It foregrounds the interdependence of epistemology and ethics, linking the micro-politics of conversation to the macro-structures of social power.

In sum, EMCA reframes knowledge as a public, sequential, and morally charged phenomenon. It enables us to see that ”knowing” is not a cognitive possession but a social achievement—one that can affirm or deny dignity, include or exclude, empower or silence. This respecification carries urgent relevance for contemporary debates about misinformation, expertise, and epistemic justice. It invites us to listen more carefully—not only to what is said, but to how it is made to matter in the choreography of social life.

SECTION XV: Applied Conversation Analysis and Social Intervention

While conversation analysis (CA) originated as a descriptive science of social action, it has increasingly been enlisted in applied research and social intervention. Critics sometimes mischaracterize CA as apolitical or methodologically insular, but the past two decades have witnessed a proliferation of studies demonstrating the capacity of CA to inform training, transform institutional practices, and advance social justice. In this section, we explore how CA is used to analyze, critique, and reshape communicative practices in professional settings such as healthcare, education, and social services, with particular attention to the Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM) and other interventionist approaches.

One of the most widely adopted tools for applied CA is CARM, developed by Elizabeth Stokoe. Unlike traditional communication training that relies on scripted role-play or abstract behavioral models, CARM employs real-life recordings of interactions to illuminate how communication succeeds or fails in practice. Practitioners—whether they are police officers, doctors, mediators, or call handlers—are invited to analyze actual talk, identifying subtle features such as turn design, question formatting, and response timing that shape the trajectory of an encounter. CARM enables a form of reflexive practice grounded not in ideology but in empirical detail: it empowers professionals to understand the interactional problems they face and equips them with evidence-based strategies for more effective engagement.

Applied CA has also been fruitfully employed in healthcare settings. Heritage and Maynard (2006) showed how doctors’ delivery of bad news involves complex interactional work: managing epistemic asymmetries, modulating affect, and preparing recipients for unwanted information. Stivers (2005) found that physicians regularly preempt resistance by embedding diagnostic recommendations within storytelling structures that make certain responses normative. These studies have contributed to the redesign of medical communication curricula, helping clinicians better recognize moments of misalignment and respond to patients in ways that maintain trust and foster collaborative decision-making.

In legal and bureaucratic contexts, CA has been used to analyze how institutional asymmetries are enacted and sometimes contested in everyday encounters. Drew and Atkinson’s (1979) foundational work on courtroom interaction demonstrated how legal authority is maintained through turn allocation, question-answer formats, and evidentiary framing. More recent studies by Haworth (2021) and Antaki (2011) have shown how credibility assessments in police interrogations and asylum hearings are shaped by the sequencing and phrasing of questions—often to the disadvantage of marginalized individuals. These findings have informed advocacy work, professional development programs, and policy reforms aimed at increasing procedural fairness and transparency.

Crucially, applied CA is not about prescribing "better" communication in a moralistic sense. Instead, it reveals how interactional practices produce inclusion or exclusion, resistance or cooperation, clarity or confusion. In doing so, it opens a space for professionals and institutions to reflect on their communicative norms and to explore alternatives. This orientation aligns CA with broader traditions of critical praxis, especially when applied in collaboration with practitioners working with vulnerable or marginalized populations.

The feminist and critical race applications of CA exemplify this intersection of analytic rigor and political engagement. Kitzinger and Wilkinson (1996) have used CA to examine the structure of helpline calls in rape crisis centers, revealing how institutional protocols can inadvertently silence or undermine victims. Their work has led to the development of training resources that help counselors recognize and counteract these effects. Similarly, Stokoe’s analysis of discrimination in neighbor disputes and housing access provides practical tools for identifying and mitigating bias in mediation and public service delivery.

In educational settings, CA researchers have shown how pedagogical authority, student participation, and learning itself are constituted through interaction. Seedhouse (2004) analyzed second language classrooms to reveal how learning opportunities arise from repair sequences and turn-taking dynamics. Mondada and colleagues have extended these insights to vocational training and STEM education, using multimodal CA to design interventions that foster more inclusive and responsive teaching environments. These efforts illustrate how applied CA can not only diagnose communicative trouble but help redesign interactional ecologies to support equity and engagement.

Finally, applied CA reinforces one of ethnomethodology’s foundational insights: that institutions are not external structures acting upon individuals, but ongoing accomplishments sustained through interaction. By intervening at the level of everyday practices, CA demonstrates that social change is not solely the domain of policy or ideology—it is also a matter of reconfiguring the sequences of talk through which authority is enacted, empathy is conveyed, and knowledge is distributed.

Thus, applied CA is not an abandonment of analytic purity but an extension of CA’s commitment to making visible the moral and practical organization of social life. When used reflexively and collaboratively, it can help build more just, responsive, and humane institutions—one interaction at a time.

SECTION XVI: Conclusion: From Minds to Moments

This paper has traced a respecification of sociological social psychology by turning from minds to moments—from cognitive substrates to interactional practices, from internalized beliefs to public displays, and from abstract variables to situated methods. Building on the traditions of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EM/CA), we have argued that the phenomena at the heart of social psychology—identity, meaning, moral order, agency, categorization, inequality—can be reconceived not as inner states or structural determinants, but as practical accomplishments. This perspective restores the richness of the interaction order and demands that we take seriously the minute particulars of talk and embodied conduct as the constitutive ground of social life.

What emerges from this reorientation is not merely an alternative theoretical model, but a different moral and methodological stance toward social reality. Rather than presuming categories, structures, or psychological traits, EM/CA begins with the observable methods by which actors produce, reproduce, and occasionally disrupt the intelligibility of the social world. This requires slow, patient attention to sequences of talk, to practices of repair, to the embedding of utterances within institutional settings, and to the lived accountability of everyday life. In contrast to abstract theorizing or hypothesis testing, it is an empirically grounded, reflexively aware, and descriptively rich approach to social inquiry.

At the same time, this re-specification is not politically neutral. As we have shown, inequality is produced through turn-taking, categorization practices, and asymmetries of knowledge display; agency is constrained or enabled through shifts in footing; and institutions are not merely backdrops but are brought into being through reflexively accountable practices. The sociology of social psychology, as reframed here, becomes a sociology of accountability, of struggle, of the moment-by-moment construction of order and disorder. In this sense, it offers not only a theoretical alternative, but a critical orientation—one that can illuminate the moral stakes of interaction in contexts of power, marginalization, and resistance.

Still, this re-specification leaves open a set of generative tensions. How should we reconcile the microsociological rigor of EM/CA with the broader aims of critical theory? How can we engage with issues of race, gender, sexuality, and class without reducing them to demographic variables or coding categories? And what does it mean to do politically engaged social science while preserving the descriptive discipline of ethnomethodological analysis? These are not obstacles to the EM/CA approach, but provocations—challenges that push the tradition forward.

Yet, as Clayman (1995) argues in The Dialectic of Ethnomethodology, there are risks in allowing respecification to become the central image of ethnomethodology’s contribution. Clayman critiques Button’s (1991) influential framing of respecification for inadvertently positioning EM/CA as a corrective to pre-existing sociological and psychological frameworks rather than as an autonomous analytic program with its own questions and phenomena. Ethnomethodology is not simply a service discipline translating canonical social-scientific problems into EM/CA terms; it seeks to uncover and describe the endogenous methods by which members produce social order, whether or not these phenomena align with the inherited concerns of mainstream social science. Our project engages in respecification but remains mindful of this dialectic—emphasizing EM/CA’s distinctive analytic agenda for sociological social psychology rather than merely circling the constructs of legacy theories.

The future of social psychology may depend not on choosing between structure and agency, mind and moment, but on cultivating methods that allow us to witness their mutual constitution. We must attend to how persons are shaped by moments, and how moments are shaped by persons; how identities are interactionally displayed, contested, and repaired; how ordinary language becomes a medium for the sacred, the brutal, the beautiful, and the unjust. The program outlined here—as inherited from Garfinkel, Sacks, Goffman, and their students—offers a template for such work, but also a demand: to return again and again to the scene of the social, with eyes wide open.

This return to the moment is, in the end, a return to the ethical center of sociology. It requires a reverence for ordinary life, a sensitivity to the fragility of meaning, and a commitment to the documentation of interaction in all its complexity. To study social psychology from this vantage is to study the ongoing production of the social world, not as a backdrop to behavior, but as the theater in which selves, relationships, institutions, and histories are accomplished. From minds to moments—and back again—we find not only explanation, but encounter.

The Critical Interactionism advanced in this paper represents a culmination of several intellectual trajectories within the Santa Barbara School tradition. From Zimmerman and West’s pioneering analysis of gender and interruption, through Maynard’s studies of diagnostic delivery and bad news, to the current generation’s engagement with race, epistemics, and institutional power, UCSB scholars have consistently demonstrated that the micro-analysis of interaction is inseparable from questions of justice, recognition, and dignity. The recent work of Rawls, Duck, and Whitehead—particularly their landmark Black Lives Matter volume (2020) and the award-winning Tacit Racism (2020)—brings this tradition into explicit dialogue with critical race theory and the sociology of W.E.B. Du Bois. Maynard and Turowetz’s Autistic Intelligence (2022), winner of the Melvin Pollner Prize, demonstrates how diagnostic categories are negotiated accomplishments with profound consequences for selfhood and social participation. Gene Lerner and Geoffrey Raymond’s work on turn construction and epistemics reveals the collaborative, projectable character of human understanding. These contributions, together with the applied work of scholars like Elizabeth Stokoe, suggest that EM/CA is not merely a method for describing interaction but a resource for transforming it.

The Santa Barbara School’s “unfinished revolution”—its incomplete engagement with race, politics, and structural inequality—is now being completed by a new generation of scholars who refuse the false choice between empirical rigor and political commitment. Critical Interactionism names this synthesis: an approach that takes seriously both the sequential organization of talk and the macro-structures of domination it enacts; that attends to the grain of everyday life while never losing sight of the historical and institutional forces that shape it; that insists on the dignity of ordinary people as competent social actors while acknowledging the constraints they face. In this vision, the interaction order is not merely an object of study but a site of struggle—and therefore, of hope.

Endnotes

1. Harold Garfinkel’s Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967) marked a decisive rupture with the dominant cognitive and individualist frameworks of postwar American social psychology. Rather than treat behavior as the outcome of internal mental states—such as beliefs, attitudes, or intentions—Garfinkel urged sociologists to study the methods by which members of society produce and recognize social order. He introduced the term ”ethnomethods” to describe the practical, taken-for-granted procedures by which people make sense of their everyday lives. In so doing, Garfinkel opened the door to a radically empirical sociology focused not on mental constructs but on situated practices—practices that are reflexively tied to the contexts in which they occur. His vision of sociology was not speculative or theoretical in the traditional sense; it was investigative, descriptive, and committed to making the ordinary observable.
2. The intellectual lineage of conversation analysis (CA) is rooted in the collaborative work of Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson, particularly their groundbreaking 1974 article on turn-taking. While Sacks is often seen as the conceptual founder, it was through this triadic collaboration that CA established its rigorous analytic procedures. John Heritage, while not a co-founder, played a crucial second-generation role in interpreting, systematizing, and institutionalizing CA and ethnomethodology within both sociology and communication studies. His 1984 monograph Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology helped introduce a wider audience to the tradition, and his later empirical work extended CA into medical, political, and epistemic domains. Heritage should be recognized not as an originator of CA but as one of its most important stewards, translators, and disseminators.
3. In the 1980s and 1990s, as CA became increasingly technical and institutionally specialized, I began to feel the need for a renewal of its critical potential. My effort to articulate a ”critical interactionism” was born from the conviction that EMCA’s analytic rigor could be preserved while re-engaging questions of power, inequality, and the moral order of social life. At the time, many in the field appeared content to remain empirically precise but politically silent, or else to bracket structural concerns entirely. There were notable exceptions—Candace West and Don Zimmerman’s work on gender, Harvey Molotch’s studies of urban space and media, and Dorothy E. Smith’s feminist epistemology—but the field as a whole seemed hesitant to reattach itself to a critical social science. My goal was not to abandon EMCA principles but to stretch them, to forge a social psychology grounded in talk and interaction but open to the ethical and political stakes of everyday life.
4. EMCA scholars often describe structures as being ”made observable and reportable” in interaction, but this formulation should not be conflated with the broader theoretical claim that structures are ”constituted.” The latter term, used by theorists such as Giddens (in structuration theory), Castoriadis (in his theory of the social imaginary), and Anne Rawls (in her Durkheimian reading of Garfinkel), carries with it a deeper ontological assertion about the nature of the social world. EMCA’s interest is narrower but no less profound: it seeks to show how structural features—categories, rules, expectations—are made consequential for participants in situ, through the local, sequential organization of talk. The difference is subtle but critical: EMCA is not interested in abstract macro-dynamics per se, but in how those dynamics are rendered relevant, responded to, and negotiated by participants. This produces a more empirically grounded and morally textured account of social life.
5. Within EMCA, the organization of interaction is understood as constitutive—not just reflective—of the contexts in which it occurs. Pause, gesture, classification, and sequence do not merely occur within ”the hospital” or ”the courtroom” but help to produce and sustain those very settings as recognizable environments. For example, a patient’s delayed response to a diagnostic question may be treated as relevant by a physician, prompting follow-up or reformulation; this shows how institutional identities are not assumed but enacted. Similarly, the use of specific categories (e.g., ”high-risk,” “noncompliant,” “case”) indexes not only individuals but participation frameworks, moral orders, and epistemic hierarchies. These seemingly minor practices are foundational to the constitution of institutional reality.
6. Schegloff’s formulation of ”procedural consequentiality” underscores the mutual entailment of interaction and institutional context. Institutional settings are not static backdrops against which interaction unfolds; they are reflexively constituted through the very practices of talk that occur within them. For example, in a courtroom, the differential rights to question, object, and rule are not simply enforced—they are brought into being through sequences of speech that display their institutional logic. The structure of interaction is thus not only shaped by the institution—it reproduces and animates the institution, moment by moment. This insight helps to move beyond static models of social structure, offering instead a dynamic view of structure-in-use.
7. In their landmark volume Talk and Social Structure (1991), Zimmerman and Boden developed the concept of institutions as ”interactional accomplishments.” This formulation rejected the top-down model of institutional power in favor of a bottom-up analysis of how institutions are achieved through situated practices. They showed that institutional order is not imposed from above but arises from the patterned regularities of turn-taking, categorial inference, accountability structures, and procedural norms. Their work laid the groundwork for a generation of studies exploring how talk constitutes authority, legitimacy, expertise, and eligibility. In this view, institutions are not external frameworks but ongoing projects—interactional phenomena produced and sustained by competent members.
8. Anne Rawls’s 2019 work attempts to retrieve and reframe Durkheim for contemporary ethnomethodology. In doing so, she claims that Garfinkel’s project can be understood as a theory of constitutive moral order, one that bridges Durkheimian normativity with Giddensian concerns about agency and structure. While Rawls provides a rich theoretical synthesis, some of her interpretations are controversial—particularly her claim that Giddens and Garfinkel are more aligned than usually assumed. Given Giddens’s long-standing critique of EM as methodologically narrow and politically irrelevant (see Endnote 12), this rapprochement may obscure more than it clarifies. Nonetheless, Rawls’s work usefully re-centers normativity, temporality, and historical consciousness within EM discourse.
9. Thomas P. Wilson’s chapter in Talk and Social Structure advances a subtle but important argument: that social structure is reproduced not through abstract constraints but through the sequential organization of interaction. Drawing on conversation analysis, Wilson shows how preference structures, turn design, and adjacency pairs enact the very norms that constitute broader institutional and societal formations. For example, the recurrent deferral to professional authority in medical consultations is not imposed from outside the interaction—it is accomplished turn by turn, through deference displays, repair avoidance, and question formatting. Wilson’s contribution lies in showing that macro-structure is sedimented in and emergent from micro-sequences.
10. Conversation analysis (CA) positions itself as a natural observational science of interaction, committed to analyzing what is publicly available to participants. It explicitly rejects the idea of inferring hidden mental states, emotions, or intentions that are not made manifest in the talk itself. As Schegloff (1991) famously put it, CA aims to ”explicate the machinery of interaction without access to the internals of the head.” This methodological discipline is not an evasion of cognition—it is a principled stance that takes seriously the reality of interaction as a world of public accountability. Meaning, knowledge, affect, and identity are not treated as precursors to action, but as achievements that must be demonstrated, responded to, and ratified in real time. This is what makes CA so powerful for the study of social order—it holds us accountable to the actual practices through which order is made to appear.
11. While many early practitioners of conversation analysis avoided overt political language, the method has always harbored radical potential. By examining how inequality, exclusion, and domination are enacted turn by turn, EMCA allows us to see power not as an abstract structure, but as a procedural accomplishment within the interaction order. Scholars such as West and Zimmerman (1983, 1987), Wilkinson and Kitzinger (2003), Whitehead (2020, 2022), and Talmy (2022) demonstrate that CA need not abandon its methodological rigor to engage with questions of justice. Rather, they show how asymmetry is displayed in sequence, how silencing is not metaphorical but observable in overlaps, pauses, and repairs, and how resistance is interactionally organized. This growing body of work—sometimes framed as ”critical CA” or ”critical EMCA”—extends the tradition’s analytic reach by demonstrating how social hierarchies are not merely reflected in talk but accomplished through it. As Whitehead (2022) argues, racial categories are not static descriptors but interactional achievements; as Wilkinson and Kitzinger (2003) insist, feminist commitments and analytic precision are not incompatible but mutually reinforcing. CA, in this light, offers a distinctive contribution to critical social science: it renders the micro-politics of injustice visible, documentable, and contestable.
12. Critics of ethnomethodology and CA have long challenged what they see as the tradition’s political quietism. Giddens (1979) accused ethnomethodology of methodological fetishism and political irrelevance. Gouldner (1970) described it as technocratic sociology for a bureaucratic age. Dorothy Smith (1987) critiqued CA for failing to engage the standpoint of women or the structures of gendered knowledge. Critical discourse analysts such as Fairclough and van Dijk have portrayed CA as formalist, myopic, and blind to ideology. These critiques are not without force, but they often miss the point: EMCA does not ignore power—it refuses to speculate about it in the abstract. Instead, it insists that domination must be shown in the conduct itself, in what participants do and hold each other accountable for. This is a different kind of critical project—slower, more empirical, but no less radical.
13. If social structures are accomplished in and through interaction—as EMCA demonstrates—then they are not immutable but contingent, contestable, and open to transformation. This insight carries radical implications: by documenting how inequality, domination, and categorization are procedurally enacted, EMCA reveals the very sites where they may be resisted or subverted. Garfinkel (1967) described the ”seen but unnoticed” background expectancies that make everyday life intelligible. But once made visible, those expectancies become open to challenge. Feminist conversation analysts like Kitzinger (2005) and Wilkinson and Kitzinger (2003) have shown how category-bound activities and turn-taking norms can be sites of gendered oppression—and of feminist intervention. Similarly, Whitehead’s (2020, 2022) work on race, and Wetherell’s (1998) on affect and discourse, demonstrate how structures of power are embedded in the minutiae of interaction. When we understand how structures are enacted, we also glimpse how they might be undone: how categories can be resisted, how sequences can be disrupted, how the organization of talk can be a terrain of struggle. This is one of the great promises of a critical interactionist approach: it does not merely deconstruct power—it reveals its workings in detail, and thereby invites intervention.
14. The ethnomethodological study of Agnes—an early case of what would now be recognized as transgender ethnography—offered a profound demonstration of how gender is not a fixed attribute but an ongoing, situated accomplishment. In Studies in Ethnomethodology, Garfinkel (1967) portrayed Agnes as someone who ”did being female” through the skilled management of interactional cues, from talk and dress to gestures and narrative consistency. Her successful ”passing” was not simply a matter of possessing a female identity, but of navigating the everyday accountability structures that sustain the gender order. Agnes had to anticipate and manage the inferences others might draw from her behavior, aligning herself with the taken-for-granted practices associated with femininity. In doing so, she enacted gender as a public, observable achievement—a performance sustained through careful coordination of embodied and discursive resources. Garfinkel’s study prefigured later developments in feminist and queer theory, including Butler’s (1990) concept of performativity and West and Zimmerman’s (1987) formulation of ”doing gender,” both of which owe an intellectual debt to this foundational case. EMCA reframes identity not as an inner state or stable self-concept but as an emergent, interactionally accomplished practice. Foundational to this shift is Garfinkel’s (1967) insistence that identity is made observable through members’ methods of categorization, accountability, and indexical reasoning. Sacks’s (1992) lectures and the Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) paper provide the analytic groundwork for understanding identity as sequentially occasioned and inferentially rich. Zimmerman (1998) extends this tradition by treating identity as situated, occasioned, and laminated into the moment-by-moment organization of talk. Heritage (2012) and Stivers, Mondada, and Steensig (2011) show how turn design, epistemics, and action formation bear traces of participants’ identity work. Watson (1978), Antaki and Widdicombe (1998), and Stokoe (2012) argue that categories are not merely referenced but enacted in situated practice. Whitehead’s (2020) studies of racial categorization, Kitzinger’s (2005) work on sexual orientation, and West and Zimmerman’s (1987) classic account of gender as a ”doing” exemplify the integration of EMCA with identity-based justice concerns. Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA), formalized by Sacks (1972) and elaborated by Hester and Eglin (1997), provides tools for examining how categories are not just descriptive but morally loaded and normatively organized. Schegloff (1991) cautions against reifying identity categories but nonetheless reveals how recipient design and reference forms reveal identity-sensitive orientations. Recent work by Speer (2005), Wetherell (2007), and Hepburn and Potter (2011) further develops CA-informed studies of gender, affect, and emotion as moral and interactional accomplishments. Across these studies, identity is respecified as an emergent, publicly available achievement embedded in the sequential and moral fabric of talk.

15. The earliest studies of turn-taking laid the empirical groundwork for seeing interaction as an orderly domain of analysis. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) demonstrated that talk is not chaotic or improvisational, but patterned and accountable, governed by normative rules that participants orient to in practice.

16. Schegloff (1986) argued that the organization of talk reflects a procedural infrastructure that undergirds interaction. He emphasized that turns are not simply responses to prior turns but anticipatory actions built through practices like projection, recipient design, and next-action relevance.

17. Maynard (2003) developed the concept of interactional sequencing in institutional settings, showing how the placement and design of questions in medical encounters can shape diagnostic outcomes. His work highlights the moral stakes embedded in moment-to-moment interaction.

18. Scholars have long explored the relationship between identity and recognition. Identity is not a fixed property of individuals but an emergent accomplishment of mutual intelligibility and social accountability (Goffman 1963; Butler 1990; Honneth 1995).

19. Jefferson’s foundational work on laughter showed that it is not merely an emotional eruption but a structurally organized feature of conversation, deeply embedded in the sequential logic of talk (Jefferson 1984).

20. The moral dimensions of interaction are evident in Goffman’s account of face-work, Jefferson’s studies of repair, and Schegloff’s analysis of remedial interchanges. Together, they reveal how speakers manage accountability and social alignment in the face of disruption (Goffman 1967; Jefferson 1987; Schegloff 2000).

21. The distinction between preferred and dispreferred responses—elaborated by Pomerantz and extended by Heritage—demonstrates how conversation is structured to navigate moral risk, particularly around disagreement, refusal, or criticism (Pomerantz 1984; Heritage 1984).

22. Stokoe’s work on identity-in-interaction illustrates how conversational participants reproduce or resist normative expectations through categorization practices, often invoking gender, class, or sexuality implicitly in the sequential flow of talk (Stokoe 2012).

23. Zimmerman and West’s classic study of interruptions showed that gendered asymmetries are not merely attitudinal or dispositional, but enacted in real-time interactions that reflect and reproduce broader patterns of inequality (West and Zimmerman 1983).

24. Kitzinger and Wilkinson’s analysis of overlap in same-sex conversations challenges the idea that interruption is always a form of dominance, showing instead that in some contexts it can express affiliation and solidarity (Kitzinger and Wilkinson 2003).

25. Whitehead’s studies of racial categorization demonstrate how race becomes interactionally relevant—not as a static identity attribute but as a locally occasioned feature of talk that constrains and enables the unfolding of social action (Whitehead 2020).

Bibliography

Antaki, Charles. 2016. "Identity Ascriptions in Their Time and Place: 'Fagin' and 'The Terminally Ill'." Pp. 279-299 in Discourse and Identity, edited by A. De Fina, D. Schiffrin, and M. Bamberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Antaki, Charles and Sue Widdicombe, eds. 1998. Identities in Talk. London: Sage.

Bamberg, Michael. 1997. "Positioning Between Structure and Performance." Journal of Narrative and Life History 7(1-4):335-342.

Berger, Joseph, Susan J. Rosenholtz, and Morris Zelditch Jr. 1977. "Status Organizing Processes." Annual Review of Sociology 6:479-508.

Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Boden, Deirdre. 1994. The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Boden, Deirdre and Don H. Zimmerman, eds. 1991. Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

Clayman, Steven E.  (1995)  “The Dialectic of Ethnomethodology,” Semiotica 107(1/2): 105-123

Clayman, Steven E. and John Heritage. 2002. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clayman, Steven E. And Jason Turowetz. Forthcoming. Language.

Davies, Bronwyn and Rom Harré. 1990. "Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves." Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20(1):43-63.

Drew, Paul. 1992. "Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape." Pp. 470-520 in Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited by P. Drew and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Drew, Paul. 1998. "Complaints About Transgressions and Misconduct." Research on Language and Social Interaction 31(3-4):295-325.

Drew, Paul and John Heritage, eds. 1992. Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Durkheim, Émile. [1893] 1997. The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by W.D. Halls. New York: Free Press.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1956. "Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies." American Journal of Sociology 61(5):420-424.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. 2007. Small Stories, Interaction and Identities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Giddens, Anthony. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1956. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York: Anchor Books.

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.

Goffman, Erving. 1983. "The Interaction Order." American Sociological Review 48(1):1-17.

Goodwin, Charles and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1990. "Context, Activity and Participation." Pp. 277-299 in Rethinking Context, edited by A. Duranti and C. Goodwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gouldner, Alvin W. 1970. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books.

Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heritage, John. 2005. "Cognition in Discourse." Pp. 183-202 in Discourse and Cognition, edited by H. te Molder and J. Potter. London: Sage.

Heritage, John. 2012. "Epistemics in Conversation." Pp. 370-394 in The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Heritage, John and Steven E. Clayman. 2010. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Heritage, John and Steven E. Clayman. 2024. Goffman, Face and the Interaction Order. In L.

Heritage, John, Steven E. Clayman, and Paul Drew. 1996. "Questioning Presidents: Journalistic Deference and Adversarialness in the Press Conferences of U.S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan." Journal of Communication 46(4):113-137.

Heritage, John and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. "The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction." Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1):15-38.

Hester, Stephen and David Eglin, eds. 1997. Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Honneth, Axel. 1995. The Struggle for Recognition. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Humă, Bogdana and Geoffrey Raymond. 2023. "Resistance in Talk-in-Interaction: Introduction to the Special Issue." Journal of Language and Social Psychology 42(1):3-15.

Jefferson, Gail. 1984. "On the Organization of Laughter in Talk About Troubles." Pp. 346-369 in Structures of Social Action, edited by J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, Gail. 1985. "On Stepwise Transition from Talk About a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-Positioned Matters." Pp. 191-222 in Structures of Social Action, edited by J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, Gail. 1988. "On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation." Social Problems 35(4):418-441.

Kitzinger, Celia. 2005. "Speaking as a Heterosexual: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction?" Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(3):221-265.

Kitzinger, Celia and Hannah Frith. 1999. "Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal." Discourse & Society 10(3):293-316.

Kitzinger, Celia and Sue Wilkinson. 2003. "Constructing Identities: A Feminist Conversation Analytic Approach to Positioning in Action." Pp. 157-180 in The Self and Others: Positioning Individuals and Groups in Personal, Political, and Cultural Contexts, edited by R. Harré and F. Moghaddam. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Lynch, Michael. 1993. Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, Michael and David Bogen. 1996. The Spectacle of History: Speech, Text and Memory at the Iran-Contra Hearings. Durham: Duke University Press.

Maynard, Douglas W. 1989. "Perspective-Display Sequences in Conversation." Western Journal of Speech Communication 53(2):91-113.

Maynard, Douglas W. 1991. "Interaction and Asymmetry in Clinical Discourse: Preliminary Observations on the Medical Interview." American Journal of Sociology 97(2):448-495.

Maynard, Douglas W. 2003. Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Maynard, Douglas W. and Steven E. Clayman. 1991. "The Diversity of Ethnomethodology." Annual Review of Sociology 17:385-418.

Maynard, Douglas W. and Jason Turowetz. 2019. "The Moral Order of the Social Institution." Pp. 15-44 in The Palgrave Handbook of the Philosophy of Aging, edited by G. Scarre. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mellinger, Wayne M. 1994. "Negotiated Orders: The Negotiation of Directives in Paramedic‐Nurse Interaction." Symbolic Interaction 17(2):165-185.

Mellinger, Wayne M. 1995. "Talk, Power and Professionals: Partial Repeats as Challenges in the Psychiatric Interview." Pp. 391-418 in Therapeutic and Everyday Discourse as Behavior Change, edited by A. Katz and A. Stubbs. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mellinger, Wayne M. 2000. "Talk-as-Work: The Case of Paramedic Calls for Emergency Field Orders." Current Research on Occupations and Professions 7:79-109.

Mellinger, Wayne M. and Don H. Zimmerman. 1998. "Accomplishing Fact in Police 'Dispatch Packages': The Situated Construction of an Organizational Record." Perspectives on Social Problems 4:47-72.

Pomerantz, Anita. 1984a. "Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes." Pp. 57-101 in Structures of Social Action, edited by J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pomerantz, Anita. 1984b. "Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy." Communication Monographs 51(2):112-132.

Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. "Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims." Human Studies 9(2-3):219-229.

Potter, Jonathan. 2012. Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.

Rapley, Mark. 2018. Discursive Psychology and the Study of Naturally Occurring Talk. London: Sage.

Rawls, Anne Warfield. 1987. "The Interaction Order Sui Generis: Goffman's Contribution to Social Theory." Sociological Theory 5(2):136-149.

Rawls, Anne Warfield. 2002. Epistemology and Practice: Durkheim's The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rawls, Anne Warfield. 2019. Harold Garfinkel: Praxis, Social Order and the Ethnomethodology Movement. London: Routledge.

Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. "Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding." American Sociological Review 68(6):939-967.

Raymond, Geoffrey. 2006. "Questions and the Conveyance of Epistemic Authority." Discourse Studies 8(5):709-731.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2001. "Gender, Status, and Leadership." Journal of Social Issues 57(4):637-655.

Sacks, Harvey. 1972. "An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data for Doing Sociology." Pp. 31-74 in Studies in Social Interaction, edited by D. Sudnow. New York: Free Press.

Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I & II. Edited by G. Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation." Language 50(4):696-735.

Scheff, Thomas J. 2006. Goffman Unbound! A New Paradigm for Social Science. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1986. "The Routine As Achievement." Human Studies 9(2-3):111-151.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1991. "Reflections on Talk and Social Structure." Pp. 44-70 in Talk and Social Structure, edited by D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. "On Talk and Its Institutional Occasions." Pp. 101-134 in Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited by P. Drew and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. "Whose Text? Whose Context?" Discourse & Society 8(2):165-187.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. "When 'Others' Initiate Repair." Applied Linguistics 21(2):205-243.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Harvey Sacks. 1973. "Opening Up Closings." Semiotica 8(4):289-327.

Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. "The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation." Language 53(2):361-382.

Schutz, Alfred. 1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Translated by G. Walsh and F. Lehnert. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Scott, Marvin B. and Stanford M. Lyman. 1968. "Accounts." American Sociological Review 33(1):46-62.

Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Speer, Susan A. 2005. Gender Talk: Feminism, Discourse and Conversation Analysis. London: Routledge.

Speer, Susan A. 2020. "Domestic Violence and the Categorization of 'Victims' and 'Perpetrators' in Police Interview Talk." Discourse & Society 31(2):141-165.

Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, eds. 2011. The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stivers, Tanya and Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2006. "A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction." Language in Society 35(3):367-392.

Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2012. "Moving Forward with Membership Categorization Analysis: Methods for Systematic Analysis." Discourse Studies 14(3):277-303.

Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner. 1986. "The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior." Pp. 7-24 in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by S. Worchel and W.G. Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Turowetz, Jason and Douglas W. Maynard. 2020. "Autism and the Social Construction of the Accountable Person." Social Psychology Quarterly 83(4):288-311.

Turowetz, Jason and Douglas W. Maynard. 2021. "Category Attributions and the Interactional Accomplishment of Stereotypes in the Autism Diagnostic Interview." Social Psychology Quarterly 84(2):100-122.

Watson, Rodney. 1978. "Categorization, Authorization and Blame-Negotiation in Conversation." Sociology 12(1):105-113.

West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1983. "Small Insults: A Study of Interruptions in Cross-Sex Conversations." Pp. 102-117 in Language, Gender and Society, edited by B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, and N. Henley. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. "Doing Gender." Gender & Society 1(2):125-151.

West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 2009. "Accounting for Doing Gender." Gender & Society 23(1):112-122.

Wetherell, Margaret. 1998. "Positioning and Interpretative Repertoires: Conversation Analysis and Post-Structuralism in Dialogue." Discourse & Society 9(3):387-412.

Wetherell, Margaret. 2007. "A Step Too Far: Discursive Psychology, Linguistic Ethnography and Questions of Identity." Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(5):661-681.

Wetherell, Margaret. 2021. Affective Practice: Studying Everyday Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whitehead, Kevin A. 2009. "Categorizing the Caller in Calls to a Technical Support Service." Pp. 49-77 in Talk in Interaction: Multilingual Perspectives, edited by H. Hazel, J. Mortensen, and G. Rasmussen. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.

Whitehead, Kevin A. 2012. "Racial Categories as Resources and Constraints in Everyday Interaction: Implications for Racialism and Non-Racialism in Post-Apartheid South Africa." Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(7):1248-1265.

Whitehead, Kevin A. 2020. "Racial Categories in Police Talk: How Police Officers Invoke Race in Telephone Calls to Dispatchers." Language in Society 49(2):189-212.

Whitehead, Kevin A. 2022. "The Category 'Colored' in Post-Apartheid South Africa: Boundary-Work and the Moral Organization of Racial Categories." Ethnic and Racial Studies 45(16):96-116.

Whitehead, Kevin A. and Gene H. Lerner. 2009. "When Are Persons 'White'? On Some Practical Asymmetries of Racial Reference in Talk-in-Interaction." Discourse & Society 20(5):613-641.

Wilkinson, Sue and Celia Kitzinger. 2003. "Constructing Identities: A Feminist Conversation Analytic Approach to Positioning in Action." Pp. 157-180 in The Self and Others, edited by R. Harré and F. Moghaddam. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Wilson, Thomas P. 1991. "Social Structure and the Sequential Organization of Interaction." Pp. 22-43 in Talk and Social Structure, edited by D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Zimmerman, Don H. 1992. "The Interactional Organization of Calls for Emergency Assistance." Pp. 418-469 in Talk at Work, edited by P. Drew and J. Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zimmerman, Don H. 1998. "Identity, Context and Interaction." Pp. 87-106 in Identities in Talk, edited by C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe. London: Sage.

Zimmerman, Don H. 2010. "Identity, Context and Interaction Revisited." Pp. 6-28 in Identities in Talk, edited by C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe. London: Sage.

Zimmerman, Don H. and Melvin Pollner. 1970. "The Everyday World as a Phenomenon." Pp. 80-103 in Understanding Everyday Life, edited by J.D. Douglas. Chicago: Aldine.

Duck, Waverly. 2015. No Way Out: Precarious Living in the Shadow of Poverty and Drug Dealing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Duck, Waverly and Anne Warfield Rawls. 2012. “Interaction Orders of Drug Dealing Spaces: Local Orders of Sensemaking in a Poor Black American Place.” Crime, Law and Social Change 57(4):291-310.

Halkowski, Timothy and Virginia Gill. 2010. “Conversation Analysis and Ethnomethodology: The Centrality of Interaction.” Pp. 212-228 in SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health Research, edited by I. Bourgeault, R. Dingwall, and R. de Vries. London: Sage.

Kidwell, Mardi. 2005. “Gaze as Social Control: How Very Young Children Differentiate ‘the Look’ from a ‘Mere Look’ by Their Adult Caregivers.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38(4):417-449.

Kidwell, Mardi. 2013. “Interaction Among Children.” Pp. 511-532 in The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kidwell, Mardi and Don H. Zimmerman. 2006. “‘Observability’ in the Interactions of Very Young Children.” Communication Monographs 73(1):1-28.

Kidwell, Mardi and Don H. Zimmerman. 2007. “Joint Attention as Action.” Journal of Pragmatics 39(3):592-611.

Lerner, Gene H. 1991. “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress.” Language in Society 20(3):441-458.

Lerner, Gene H. 1996. “On the ‘Semi-Permeable’ Character of Grammatical Units in Conversation: Conditional Entry into the Turn Space of Another Speaker.” Pp. 238-276 in Interaction and Grammar, edited by E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, and S.A. Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lerner, Gene H., ed. 2004. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lerner, Gene H. and Geoffrey Raymond. 2021. “Body Trouble: Some Sources of Difficulty in the Progressive Realization of Manual Action.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 54(3):277-298.

Maynard, Douglas W., Steven Clayman, Timothy Halkowski, and Mardi Kidwell. 2010. “Toward an Interdisciplinary Field: Language and Social Interaction Research at UCSB.” Pp. 287-316 in Sociological Forum 25(2).

Maynard, Douglas W. and Jason Turowetz. 2017. “Doing Diagnosis: Autism, Interaction Order, and the Use of Narrative in Clinical Talk.” Social Psychology Quarterly 80(1):83-109.

Maynard, Douglas W. and Jason Turowetz. 2019. “Doing Abstraction: Autism, Diagnosis, and Social Theory.” Sociological Theory 37(1):89-116.

Maynard, Douglas W. and Jason Turowetz. 2022. Autistic Intelligence: Interaction, Individuality, and the Challenges of Diagnosis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rawls, Anne Warfield and Waverly Duck. 2020. Tacit Racism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rawls, Anne Warfield, Kevin A. Whitehead, and Waverly Duck, eds. 2020. Black Lives Matter: Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analytic Studies of Race and Systemic Racism in Everyday Interaction. London: Routledge.

Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68(6):939-967.

Raymond, Geoffrey. 2004. “Prompting Action: The Stand-Alone ‘So’ in Ordinary Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(2):185-218.

Turowetz, Jason and Douglas W. Maynard. 2020. “Autism and the Social Construction of the Accountable Person.” Social Psychology Quarterly 83(3):248-268.

Turowetz, Jason and Douglas W. Maynard. 2021. “Category Attributions and the Interactional Accomplishment of Stereotypes in the Autism Diagnostic Interview.” Social Psychology Quarterly 84(4):309-333.

Whalen, Jack, Marilyn Whalen, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1988. “When Words Fail: A Single Case Analysis.” Social Problems 35(4):333-362.

Whalen, Jack and Erik Vinkhuyzen. 2000. “Expert Systems in (Inter)action: Diagnosing Document Machine Problems over the Telephone.” Pp. 92-140 in Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing System Design, edited by P. Luff, J. Hindmarsh, and C. Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whalen, Jack, Marilyn Whalen, Robert J. Moore, Geoffrey Raymond, and Erik Vinkhuyzen. 2004. “Studying Workscapes.” Pp. 208-229 in Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis, edited by P. LeVine and R. Scollon. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Button, Graham, ed. 1991. Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, Derek. 1997. Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.

Edwards, Derek and Jonathan Potter. 1992. Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.

Potter, Jonathan. 1996. Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage.

Potter, Jonathan and Margaret Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.