The Ethnomethodological Study of Organizational Records, Documents, and Archives by wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

The Ethnomethodological Study of Organizational

Records, Documents, and Archives

A Critical Survey of a Tradition

Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

I. Introduction: A Sociology of Documentary Organization

The ethnomethodological study of organizational records begins with a refusal of

the most commonsense assumption about documents: that they are secondary

representations of organizational reality. In the ethnomethodological tradition, records,

files, reports, case notes, dossiers, forms, charts, archives, and databases are not merely

after-the-fact descriptions of work already done. They are themselves practical

accomplishments and constitutive features of organizational work. They are produced

for locally intelligible purposes, written for anticipated readers, shaped by prospective

accountability, embedded in sequences of action, and used to assemble the very

persons, cases, events, and organizational realities they appear only to describe. This

essay reconstructs that tradition — from its founding arguments in the 1960s through

its contemporary extensions into digital governance and data justice — as a coherent

intellectual genealogy: a sociology of documentary organization.[1]

This genealogy runs from Harold Garfinkel and Egon Bittner's foundational study

of clinical records through Aaron Cicourel's analysis of juvenile justice files, Don H.

Zimmerman's analysis of welfare intake, Arthur Meehan's study of police records, Jack

Whalen's work on emergency dispatch and computer-aided record production, Wayne

Martin Mellinger's studies of paramedic reporting and institutional transmission,

Richard Harper's workplace artifact studies, Christian Heath and Paul Luff's

video-analytic investigations of documents in professional practice, Marc Berg's

research on medical records, the Palo Alto/Xerox PARC workplace studies lineage,

Jason Turowetz and Douglas Maynard's diagnostic documentation research, and more

recent institutional ethnographers including Naomi Nichols, Erin Rosenberg, Susan

Cullingham, Kazue Yamaguchi, Julie Malenfant, and Catherine Schryer on evidence,

data systems, genre, prevention, and digital infrastructure.[2]Seven dominant themes organize this tradition, each developed across the sections

that follow. First, documents are constitutive rather than merely representational: they

produce the institutional realities they appear only to record. Second, documents are

practical accomplishments: situated achievements of practical reasoning rather than

mechanical transcriptions. Third, documents are prospective: written for anticipated

future readers and future organizational occasions. Fourth, documents coordinate

distributed institutional action: they are coordinative artifacts that synchronize

organizations, professions, shifts, and temporal sequences across space and time. Fifth,

documentary systems suppress disjuncture: they flatten ambiguity, standardize

complexity, and produce administratively stable accounts that conceal the interpretive

labor of their own production. Sixth, documentary infrastructures generate workaround

behavior: formal systems cannot fully contain situated practice, and the workaround is

evidence of mismatch rather than failure. Seventh, documentary systems allocate

institutional visibility unevenly: some persons become highly visible, trackable, and

administratively actionable; others become documentarily unstable, poorly

categorizable, and practically invisible to institutional response. This seventh theme —

connecting documentary sociology to premature death, abandonment, and the collapse

of institutional futurity — is the central concern of the present author's own scholarly

program.

A concluding section addresses five major criticisms leveled at

ethnomethodological documentary studies and argues that the tradition's apparent

limitations are transformable into analytical strengths. The essay closes with a synthetic

argument: that this tradition constitutes a sociology of documentary organization

uniquely equipped to analyze the administrative machinery through which institutional

abandonment is produced — and that it anticipated, by several decades, the

contemporary concerns of algorithmic governance, data justice, and automated triage.

II. Garfinkel and Bittner: Good Organizational Reasons for Bad Records

The canonical starting point for the ethnomethodological study of documents is

Harold Garfinkel and Egon Bittner's essay "Good Organizational Reasons for 'Bad'

Clinical Records," published in Garfinkel's Studies in Ethnomethodology in 1967.[3]

Their argument constituted a decisive break from administrative and clinical

perspectives that evaluated records according to external standards of completeness,accuracy, and formal adequacy. Garfinkel and Bittner demonstrated that clinical

records appearing incomplete, vague, abbreviated, or defective from an external

standpoint may be perfectly adequate — indeed, good organizational work — when

understood within the practical ecology of the setting in which they are produced and

used.

The record is not written for an abstract universal reader. It is written for

competent members who know the setting, its routines, its categories, its omissions, its

relevancies, and its practical purposes. A "bad" record may be "good" because it is

fitted to the work it is meant to support. What appears as incompleteness to an outside

evaluator is often a locally reasonable truncation: the information omitted is available

from other organizational members through practical reasoning, embodied familiarity,

and shared knowledge of cases. The record is an artifact of a socially organized

activity, not a free-standing transcript.[4]

Garfinkel's broader program in Studies in Ethnomethodology established several

further dimensions central to documentary sociology. His concept of "practical

reasoning" — the methods ordinary members use to produce and recognize socially

organized conduct — applies fully to documentary practices. Garfinkel's breaching

experiments demonstrated the fragility of institutional order's dependence on unstated

common understandings, and his study of juror reasoning showed specifically how

official decision-making involves unacknowledged practical reasoning that cannot be

fully captured in any formal record. Official records are always thinner than the

activities that produced them.[5]

Egon Bittner's independent contributions deserve equal emphasis. His analysis of

policing on skid row demonstrated how organizational rules are practically invoked

rather than mechanically applied.[6] Officers use rules as resources for accounting for

conduct that is already decided through other means — not as algorithms that

determine action. This has direct implications for documentary practice: forms,

protocols, checklists, and mandatory fields are similarly invocable resources rather than

iron determinants. This is the earliest theoretical statement of what Rosenberg, Nichols,

and Cullingham would later call "workaround" practices.

The significance of Garfinkel and Bittner for later scholarship cannot be

overstated. They established: (1) records as practical organizational accomplishmentsrather than neutral representations; (2) the indexical character of documentary

language, context-bound and member-reliant; (3) the prospective and retrospective

organization of records around practical accountability; and (4) the inadequacy of

external documentary standards as criteria for organizational adequacy. Each of these

propositions would be extended, refined, and given new application across six

subsequent decades of scholarship.

III. Cicourel: Documentary Reality and the Production of Institutional Persons

Aaron Cicourel's contributions to the sociology of documents are foundational

and frequently underappreciated. His The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice,

published in 1968, extended Garfinkel and Bittner's insights from the clinical into the

legal-administrative domain.[7] Police reports, probation records, court documents,

interviews, and official classifications do not simply record delinquency. They

participate in producing delinquency as an institutional object. Cicourel showed how

situated conduct is translated into official categories through interpretive and

documentary procedures. The juvenile offender emerges through a sequence of

encounters, records, classifications, and organizational decisions — a documentary

person assembled across institutional time.

This is a major precursor to Smith's "documentary reality" because Cicourel

demonstrates that institutional facts are assembled through documentary pathways. The

file is not a passive memory device. It is part of the machinery through which a person

becomes administratively recognizable and procedurally actionable. A youth's prior

recorded encounters shape how current encounters are interpreted and further recorded.

Each entry sediments into an institutional biography that will be read forward. The

dossier creates a person who was already there before any current encounter began — a

documentary person who precedes and shapes institutional responses to the embodied

person.[8]

Cicourel's concept of "interpretive procedures" — developed across The Social

Organization of Juvenile Justice, Method and Measurement in Sociology, and

Cognitive Sociology — refers to background rules of practical reasoning that members

use to produce and recognize socially organized conduct.[9] These interpretiveprocedures are not visible in official records. They are the unstated methods through

which records are assembled, read, and acted upon. Records appear as factual

summaries, but they are achievements of interpretive work that cannot be read off their

surfaces.

IV. Don H. Zimmerman: Welfare Records, Intake Practices, and Structures-in-Action

Don H. Zimmerman's contribution to the ethnomethodological study of

documents is among the most important in the tradition, yet it has received insufficient

attention in reviews that focus primarily on his conversation analytic work. His analysis

of welfare documentation — most fully developed in "Record-Keeping and the Intake

Process in a Public Welfare Agency," published in Stanton Wheeler's On Record: Files

and Dossiers in American Life (1969) — constitutes one of the clearest early accounts

of how organizational persons are produced through documentary interaction.[10]

The welfare applicant does not simply arrive as a pre-existing case whose facts

are then written down. Rather, the intake encounter is organized to produce a

recordable, categorially relevant, administratively processable case. The interview, the

form, the worker's questions, the applicant's answers, and the agency's eligibility

categories are mutually organized. The form determines what questions are asked; the

questions determine what answers are relevant; the answers determine what can be

entered; and the entries determine what the case becomes administratively. The

applicant's lived situation is transformed — through this documentary interaction —

into an institutional fact. People-work and paperwork are not separate domains.

Zimmerman's broader organizational ethnomethodology — developed through

collaboration with Melvin Pollner, D. Lawrence Wieder, and Thomas P. Wilson at UC

Santa Barbara — established organizations as practical accomplishments rather than

structures standing above activity.[11] This is where the Wilson-Zimmerman

"structures-in-action" formulation becomes relevant for documentary sociology.

Records are one of the primary media through which organizational structure is

enacted. A rule, a category, a file, or an intake form does not mechanically determine

action; it is taken up by competent members in situated courses of work. But neither is

it merely symbolic decoration. It has consequential force because members orient to it,fill it out, preserve it, retrieve it, cite it, and use it to warrant subsequent action.

Zimmerman's conversation analytic work is deeply continuous with his earlier

documentary program.[12] The emergency call to a public service agency is, among

other things, a documentary occasion: the call-taker is constructing a dispatchable

event, a categorized incident, an addressable location, a priority level. The call

produces a record as it unfolds. This is the extension of documentary sociology into the

fine-grained sequential structure of real-time organizational interaction — the

extension that Jack Whalen would later develop explicitly.

V. Dorothy E. Smith: Documentary Reality, Active Texts, and Ruling Relations

Dorothy E. Smith takes the ethnomethodological insights of Garfinkel, Bittner,

Cicourel, and Zimmerman and generalizes them into a sociology of documentary

reality and textually mediated ruling relations. Her work represents the most sustained

and theoretically ambitious treatment of documents in the sociological tradition —

continuous with, while also transforming, the ethnomethodological record literature,

moving its insights from organizational work practices into a critical theory of how

modern power operates through documentary mediation.

Smith's foundational essay "The Social Construction of Documentary Reality"

(1974) argues that socially organized practices of reporting and recording "work upon

what actually happens" to create a documentary reality that has organizational

force.[13] Institutional facts are not simply discovered; they are produced through

practices of categorization, inscription, reporting, circulation, and reading. Documents

create externalized, transportable versions of events that institutions can act upon

independently of the original situations. The documentary is not posterior to the social

but constitutive of it — and crucially for Smith, the process of constitution is also a

process of power.

Smith's analysis "K Is Mentally Ill: The Anatomy of a Factual Account" (1978)

demonstrates this argument with precision.[14] The text presents a vignette and shows

how a reader assembles a psychiatric diagnosis from behavioral particulars by reading

them through the category already proposed in the title. This is the complement of

Cicourel's institutional documentary analysis: where Cicourel showed how juveniledelinquency is produced through organizational records, Smith shows how mental

illness is produced through the rhetorical-documentary procedure available to any

competent reader.

Smith's The Conceptual Practices of Power (1990) and Texts, Facts, and

Femininity (1990) extended this analysis into a broader sociology of textual

mediation.[15] Texts are active: they enter into sequences of institutional action and

organize what happens next. A form structures an interview. A chart organizes clinical

perception. A policy manual standardizes judgment. A case note carries forward a

version of a person. A risk score reorganizes institutional priority. Smith's concept of

the "active text" names this consequential force — connecting constitutive documents

directly to their coordinative function in ruling relations.

The concept of "textually mediated social organization" provides the meso-level

mechanism connecting active texts to the macro-level analysis of ruling.[16] Texts

coordinate social relations across time and space. The same form is filled out across

thousands of offices. The same protocol governs encounters in different cities. The

same database architecture organizes information across jurisdictions. Translocal

coordination is possible precisely because texts can travel. Smith's achievement was to

show that ruling relations are documentary relations.

Smith's essay "Textual Realities, Ruling, and the Suppression of Disjuncture"

advances the analysis by showing that institutional texts do not merely coordinate

action — they actively suppress contradictions, uncertainty, and experiential

disjunctures in order to stabilize organizationally usable realities.[17] Documentary

systems erase the contingent, messy, contradictory processes through which records are

produced. The final record appears smooth, factual, and authoritative; the practical

work of its assembly is invisible in the artifact itself. This suppression of disjuncture is

precisely what makes the social autopsy necessary: the autopsy must reconstruct what

the documentary machinery has systematically concealed.

Smith's Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People (2005) brought this

documentary sociology into a systematic research program that begins from the

standpoint of people embedded in institutional settings and traces the documentary and

textual relations that coordinate and govern their experience.[18] Her concept of

"documentary society" provides macro-level framing for analyzing how particular localdocumentary practices — HMIS records, coordinated entry assessments, vulnerability

indices, discharge summaries — are expressions of a more general transformation of

governance through textual infrastructure.

VI. Meehan, Whalen, and Mellinger: Prospective Records, Dispatch, and Clinical Transmission

Arthur J. Meehan's studies of police record-keeping develop what is perhaps the

most undertheorized dimension of the tradition: the prospective organization of

documents.[19] Police reports are not written simply to memorialize what happened.

They are written for future institutional readers: supervisors, prosecutors, courts,

defense attorneys, other officers, and administrative reviewers. The record is produced

with its anticipated organizational career already built into its form. Officers write

reports not as neutral transcripts but as defensible institutional accounts that anticipate

challenges, justify decisions, and satisfy the accountability demands of future readers.

The choice of category — "disturbance" rather than "assault," "field contact" rather

than "stop" — has institutional consequences that officers understand prospectively.

Meehan's studies of the organizational career of gang statistics demonstrate how

records accumulate institutional careers of their own.[20] A statistic that begins as a

practical measure of patrol activity is transformed, through successive organizational

citations, into an authoritative account of gang activity that shapes policy, resource

allocation, and further documentation. Records beget records. Documentary realities,

once stabilized, become resources for producing further documentary realities — what

the present author has called documentary sedimentation.

Jack Whalen and Marilyn Whalen, often in collaboration with Zimmerman, bring

the ethnomethodological study of records into real-time institutional interaction.[21]

Their work on emergency calls and computer-aided dispatch shows how vernacular

accounts of trouble are transformed into dispatchable institutional events. A caller's

urgent description of trouble must be heard, questioned, categorized, entered, and

rendered actionable within a technological and organizational infrastructure that both

enables and constrains response. The emerging record is not merely a transcript of the

call; it organizes the call as it unfolds. Required fields, incident codes, location formats,

and dispatch protocols exercise documentary gravity, pulling the encounter towardtheir categories.

The analysis of "Interrupted Dispatching" shows with particular clarity what is at

stake in documentary production under time pressure.[22] The failure was not merely a

communication breakdown. It was a documentary and organizational failure: a failure

to translate the caller's account into the institutionally actionable form that would

trigger emergency response. When the documentary infrastructure fails, the patient's

needs may not be institutionally visible — even when the patient is physically present.

Wayne Martin Mellinger's studies of paramedic-nurse interaction and emergency

dispatch belong directly in this tradition and extend it into clinical emergency

medicine. In "Talk-as-Work: The Case of Paramedic Calls for Emergency Field

Orders" (1992), Mellinger analyzed how paramedic calls construct the clinical situation

as an interactional and documentary accomplishment, producing an institutionally

recognizable emergency that warrants a physician response.[23] In "Accomplishing

Fact in Police 'Dispatch Packages': An Analysis of the Situated Construction of an

Organizational Record" (1992), he demonstrated how organizational records are

practically assembled in real time — showing that dispatch packages are situated

constructions that produce institutional facts rather than neutrally reporting them.[24]

In "Negotiated Orders: The Negotiation of Directives in Paramedic-Nurse

Interactions" (1994), Mellinger showed how institutional authority is interactionally

produced through the sequential organization of directive-response pairs — authority

borrowed from grammar and turn design rather than simply from organizational

hierarchy.[25] His later Doing Modernity essays — including "Jack Whalen and the

Documentary Constitution of Organizational Reality" (2026) and "The Documentary

Constitution of Organizational Reality: A Research Program" (2026) — developed

these early empirical findings into a broader theoretical account of how documentary

practices constitute institutional realities and organize the conditions of possibility for

institutional abandonment.[26]

In emergency medical work, bodily symptoms, scene conditions, patient accounts,

paramedic assessments, and treatment requests must be transformed into institutionally

recognizable packages that can travel across organizational boundaries. The patient is

rendered through a reportable clinical format before arriving at the receiving

institution. In this sense, the documentary patient can precede the embodied patient.The format does three things simultaneously: it coordinates action across

organizational boundaries, it produces an institutional account of the patient, and it

constitutes a moment in the patient's documentary career within the healthcare system.

Mellinger's later work on abandonment extends this finding: documentary vulnerability

is a condition of possibility for institutional non-response. The person who cannot be

represented in institutionally recognizable form may not receive care, regardless of the

urgency of their embodied need.

VII. The Palo Alto / Xerox PARC Lineage: From Organizational Ethnomethodology to Workplace Studies

One of the most consequential migrations in the history of this tradition occurred

when organizational ethnomethodology moved into the workplace studies programs at

Xerox PARC and related research centers in the late 1980s and 1990s. This migration

is historically important because it is through this branch that ethnomethodological

documentary analysis entered the fields of human-computer interaction,

computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW), and infrastructure studies.[27]

Mellinger's "EM/CA AT XEROX PARC" (2025) provides a useful overview of this

transition and its implications for critical interactionist analysis.[28]

Lucy Suchman's Plans and Situated Actions (1987) provided the theoretical

foundation for this migration.[29] Suchman's argument — that purposive action is not

the execution of pre-formed plans but an improvisational achievement oriented to

emerging circumstances — applied the core ethnomethodological insight about

practical reasoning directly to human-computer interaction. Documents, interfaces,

protocols, and systems are resources for action rather than determinants of it. Workers

read interfaces the way Garfinkel's members read forms: practically, indexically, with

reference to unstated background knowledge.

Jack Whalen's studies of Xerox Customer Service Representatives extended this

analysis to knowledge-work settings.[30] The knowledge base, the trouble-ticket

system, the work instructions, and the service record are all documentary artifacts that

organize the service representative's encounter with the customer's problem. The

problem must be entered, categorized, tracked, resolved, and closed. The record of the

interaction is simultaneously a management tool, a performance metric, a knowledgerepository, and an accountability instrument.

The CSCW tradition that grew from this lineage formalized the analysis of

coordinative artifacts and articulation work.[31] Kjeld Schmidt's concept of

"coordinative artifacts" — documents, forms, schedules, classifications, workflows,

maps, and protocols as practical resources through which complex cooperative activity

is organized — extends and formalizes what Smith calls "active texts." Schmidt's key

contribution is to avoid both bureaucratic determinism and romantic anti-formalism:

formal constructs do not mechanically determine situated action, but they do have

coordinative force. Schmidt's analysis of "articulation work" — the labor required to

coordinate distributed activity — names something that official organizational accounts

systematically conceal: the invisible labor of making work work. This invisibility is

itself a documentary effect, a concrete instance of the suppression of disjuncture in the

domain of cooperative work.

VIII. Heath, Luff, Harper, Berg, and Schryer: Materiality, Ecology, and Genre

Heath and Luff: Documents as Interactional Ecology

Christian Heath and Paul Luff's video-based studies of workplace interaction —

elaborated in Technology in Action and studies of medical consultations, trading rooms,

and control centers — deepen the documentary tradition in an important direction.[32]

Their analyses show that documents are not simply read privately. They are pointed to,

glanced at, annotated, displayed, compared, repositioned, and incorporated into

embodied courses of action. Documents are parts of interactional ecologies. Records

have bodies around them. Their meaning and force emerge in practice. The chart can

organize clinical attention in ways that redirect perception away from what the patient

is actually doing or saying — a concrete illustration of how the document actively

organizes clinical perception rather than merely recording it.

Richard Harper: Material Artifacts and Documentary Ecology

Richard Harper's studies of workplace records — especially his ethnographic

study of the International Monetary Fund in Inside the IMF — extend the analysis

toward the material ecology of documentary artifacts.[33] Air traffic control flight strips— physical paper strips that controllers used to track aircraft — were not simply

information-storage devices. They were physical objects that could be moved, stacked,

turned, annotated, and spatially arranged to represent the temporal and spatial

organization of air traffic. The attempted transition to computerized systems produced

organizational crises that were, at bottom, documentary crises: the loss of a material

artifact through which coordinative work had been practically accomplished.

Marc Berg: Medical Records and Clinical Trajectories

Marc Berg's studies of medical records and computer-based patient records show

how records do not merely describe the body but help produce medically actionable

bodies.[34] Medical records organize relations among clinicians, departments,

diagnostic categories, treatment plans, accountability systems, and institutional

workflows. Digital records are not just paper records made efficient. They embed

models of work, assumptions about sequence, categories of relevance, and managerial

expectations. When those models fail to match actual clinical practice, workers

improvise around them — early evidence of what would become the workaround

literature.

Catherine Schryer: Records as Genre

Catherine Schryer's "Records as Genre" adds a crucial rhetorical and

genre-theoretical layer to documentary sociology.[35] Schryer argues that records are

genres: historically stabilized, institutionally recognizable forms of action. Her concept

of genres as "stabilized-for-now" structures captures something neither Garfinkel's

situationalism nor Smith's structural account fully articulates: that records occupy a

middle zone between contingent accomplishment and durable structure. Records are

never fully fixed, yet are stable enough to coordinate action, reproduce professional

authority, and organize institutional memory. Medical records embed a particular

chronotope — a linear temporal trajectory from presentation through diagnosis to

treatment and discharge — that suppresses temporal complexity in the interest of

organizational coherence.

IX. Turowetz and Maynard: Diagnostic Documentation and Interactional Assembly

Jason Turowetz and Douglas Maynard's work on diagnostic interaction is among

the most methodologically sophisticated in the tradition.[36] Their studies of autism

spectrum diagnosis demonstrate how diagnostic categories are interactionally and

documentarily assembled through sequences that include parental interviews,

standardized tests, clinical observations, professional consultations, and the final

diagnostic record. Turowetz's analyses of the ADOS assessment instrument show how

standardized assessment procedures are adapted to the practical circumstances of each

diagnostic encounter while producing results that have the form of objective

measurement — a clinical expression of the tension between prospective documentary

accountability and situated practical reasoning.

The integration of interactional and documentary analysis in this body of work is

its signal contribution. Diagnosis is interactionally and documentarily assembled

through sequences in which talk, observation, testing, recording, and deliberation are

mutually organized. The diagnostic record is the product of this assembly, but it also

organizes subsequent interaction and institutional action. This bidirectional relation —

between interaction and documentation — is the ethnomethodological tradition's most

precise articulation of the constitutive proposition in clinical form: the document

constitutes the institutional reality it appears only to record.[37]

X. Archives, Memory, and Documentary Disappearance

The preceding sections have focused primarily on the production and circulation

of records in active organizational settings. An equally important dimension — and one

less fully developed in the existing literature — concerns the archive: the accumulation,

storage, retrieval, and disappearance of organizational records over institutional time.

Archival practices are not merely the passive residue of active record-keeping; they are

themselves consequential organizational activities that determine what can be known,

remembered, retrieved, and acted upon.[38]

Archival accumulation produces what this essay calls documentary sedimentation:

the layering of successive records into an institutional biography that shapes all future

institutional encounters. Each record laid down becomes a stratum in the organization's

knowledge of a person. As strata accumulate, earlier layers become less accessible —

buried under more recent documentation, subject to retention schedules that purgeolder records, or stored in incompatible formats. The institutional biography that results

is not an accurate reconstruction of a person's history; it is the documentary residue of

their encounters with recording institutions, shaped by what those institutions chose to

record, how they categorized it, and what they retained.

Who becomes unrecoverable in the archive? Persons whose records are

distributed across multiple incompatible systems — child welfare, justice, health,

shelter, school — may have no single institutional repository where their history can be

retrieved and assembled. Persons whose records are purged under retention schedules

may encounter future institutions with no documentary history, and thus no

institutional basis for continuity of care. Persons whose experiences do not fit official

recording categories may be present in archives without being documentarily visible:

records were kept, but they do not capture what happened.

Foucault's analysis of the archive treats it not as a neutral repository but as a

regulatory system that determines what can be said, thought, and remembered.[39]

Retention schedules — administrative rules governing how long records are kept

before destruction — determine what the institution will know about its clients in the

future, what accountability for past decisions will be possible, and what documentary

basis will exist for continuity of care. Bureaucratic forgetting is thus not merely a

technical problem. It is an organizational practice with political and moral

consequences: the mechanism through which institutional knowledge of vulnerable

persons is periodically destroyed and institutional accountability for their care is

periodically severed.

XI. Nichols, Rosenberg, Cullingham, Yamaguchi, and Malenfant: Digital

Governance, Workarounds, and Counter-Documentary Practice

The final stage of this genealogy extends Smith's documentary sociology into

contemporary governance: digital information systems, mandatory data platforms,

audit culture, and the documentary governance of vulnerable populations. The

scholarship of Naomi Nichols, Erin Rosenberg, Susan Cullingham, Kazue Yamaguchi,

and Julie Malenfant represents the most sustained contemporary development of the

institutional ethnographic documentary tradition.Naomi Nichols' Technologies of Evidence is one of the strongest contemporary

extensions of Smith's documentary sociology.[40] Nichols studies how institutional

evidence is produced and used across schools, streets, courts, and public-sector systems

from the standpoint of racialized and "at-risk" youth. Her concept of "technologies of

evidence" names the socially organized practices through which professionals record

and account for their work as part of institutionally sanctioned courses of action.

Public-sector professionals must fit what actually happened into categories that

demonstrate risk mediation and institutional accountability. Young people's

experiential accounts are displaced by official documentary versions that have legal

and institutional force.

Rosenberg, Nichols, and Cullingham's "Workarounds to Mandated Data

Practices" is perhaps the most important recent article for connecting Smith's

documentary sociology to digital infrastructure.[41] Their central finding is that

technologies introduced to standardize and streamline data practices have instead

produced a proliferation of local workaround practices, because mandated systems do

not align with everyday social work practices, service delivery aims, or professional

ethics. Workers maintain shadow records, use informal communication channels, enter

data after the fact, and strategically categorize situations to produce records that satisfy

system requirements without distorting service reality. The workaround is not a sign of

non-compliance; it is evidence that the system's model of work does not match actual

work.

Yamaguchi and colleagues' "Towards Youth-Centered Information Practices"

shifts documentary sociology from the worker's standpoint to the service user's

standpoint.[42] Information collection is not a neutral administrative moment. It is an

interactional encounter in which youth may experience vulnerability, distrust, coercion,

exposure, and compelled visibility. The requirement to disclose personal information as

a condition of receiving service — to make oneself legible to institutional categories —

is a form of documentary labor: the work of producing one's own institutional

documentation.

Malenfant, Watchorn, and Nichols' work on homeless youth-led activism opens

an important counter-documentary dimension.[43] The production of counter-records

— community databases, participatory research reports, testimony archives, social

movement documentation — is a form of counter-documentary practice: an assertion ofthe right to produce alternative institutional realities. Who controls documentary

legitimacy, whose account becomes institutionally actionable, and whose experience is

suppressed in the interest of organizational coherence: these are fundamental political

questions that documentary sociology is uniquely equipped to analyze.

XII. Critical Responses and the Tradition's Strengths

First Criticism: Ethnomethodological Documentary Studies Are Overly Micro

Critics have argued that this literature studies paperwork practices while ignoring

capitalism, racial domination, state power, class inequality, settler colonialism, and

neoliberal restructuring.[44] This criticism has historical force: early ethnomethodology

often bracketed macro-structural explanation. But the documentary level is not opposed

to macro-structure — it is one of the mechanisms through which macro-structure

operates. Smith explicitly reconnects documentary practices to ruling relations. Nichols

and contemporary institutional ethnographers reconnect documentary systems to

racialization, poverty governance, and state administration. The micro-practice of

form-filling is where macro-structures of race, class, and power encounter the bodies of

the people they govern.

Second Criticism: The Tradition Overstates Documentary Power

A second criticism argues that people are not merely documents — that embodied

interaction, emotion, violence, material deprivation, and political economy exceed

paperwork. The strongest response is that the tradition does not claim documents

replace embodiment. Rather, it studies how institutions encounter embodiment through

documentary mediation.[45] The point is not that documents replace bodies but that

institutional access to bodies — including institutional decisions about who receives

care — is mediated through documentary infrastructure. The document does not

replace the person; it determines whether, how, and on what terms the institution can

respond to the person.

Third Criticism: The Tradition Romanticizes Worker Discretion

Foucauldian and Marxist critics might argue that ethnomethodology

underestimates domination by focusing on situated improvisation and practical

agency.[46] The workaround literature provides the best answer. Workers improviseinside infrastructures they do not control. Improvisation is not freedom; it is often

compensatory labor inside structurally contradictory systems. This is a much more

nuanced position than either bureaucratic determinism or voluntaristic interactionism.

Fourth Criticism: The Literature Neglects Resistance

Traditional documentary sociology focused more on institutional inscription than

on counter-documentation, refusal, subversion, or alternative archives. Contemporary

institutional ethnography — particularly in the work of Malenfant, Nichols, and their

collaborators — has begun to address this directly.[47] Counter-documentary practice is

increasingly a site of political struggle in movements for housing justice, immigration

rights, police accountability, and healthcare equity.

Fifth Criticism: The Literature Predates Algorithmic Governance

A final criticism argues that a literature about paper forms and face-to-face intake

encounters cannot adequately address AI classification, predictive analytics, digital

surveillance, automated triage, risk scoring, and data justice.[48] The response is the

tradition's most important claim: Smith and Zimmerman were studying algorithmic

governance before algorithms. The propositions of the tradition translate directly.

Documents are constitutive: vulnerability scores do not reflect pre-existing risk; they

constitute institutional risk categories. Documents suppress disjuncture: automated

systems conceal their own construction more thoroughly than any paper record. And

documentary systems allocate institutional visibility unevenly: the same populations

that were invisible in paper-based systems are invisible in their digital successors —

with greater precision, speed, and reach. Garfinkel's insight about "bad" records applies

fully to "bad" algorithms: they may be organizationally excellent while being

practically disastrous for the people they process.

XIII. Synthesis: The Documentary Machinery of Institutional Life

Taken together, the literature reviewed in this essay constitutes a sociology of

documentary organization: a coherent, multi-generational intellectual tradition that

analyzes how records, documents, archives, texts, and data systems are the practical

mechanisms through which institutional life is organized, reproduced, and made

consequential for the persons who encounter it.The tradition's development proceeded through several linked stages. Garfinkel

and Bittner established that records must be analyzed as situated organizational

accomplishments. Cicourel and Zimmerman showed how records produce institutional

cases and persons. Smith generalized these insights into a sociology of documentary

reality, active texts, and ruling relations. The Palo Alto/Xerox PARC lineage migrated

organizational ethnomethodology into workplace studies, CSCW, and infrastructure

studies. Meehan, Whalen, Mellinger, Harper, Heath and Luff, Berg, Schryer, and

Turowetz and Maynard demonstrated how records operate prospectively, materially,

interactionally, clinically, diagnostically, and technologically within organized work.

The archival dimension extended the tradition's temporal scope. And Nichols,

Rosenberg, Cullingham, Yamaguchi, and Malenfant brought the tradition into the

contemporary governance landscape.

Smith should not be treated only as a feminist standpoint theorist or the founder of

institutional ethnography, though she is both. She should also be read as a major

theorist of documentary organization whose work grows out of, transforms, and

exceeds the ethnomethodological study of records. Her concept of the active text is the

most developed theoretical account available of how documents operate within

relations of power. Her concept of ruling relations gives political content to what the

ethnomethodological tradition analyzed as organizational accomplishment. And her

concept of documentary society names the macro-level transformation — from

governance through face-to-face administration to governance through replicable,

scalable, algorithmic texts — of which contemporary digital governance systems are

the latest expression.

The implications for Abandonment in Real Time are direct and profound. The

machinery of abandonment is not simply a system of bad decisions or indifferent

institutions. It is a documentary machinery: a set of record-producing,

evidence-generating, risk-classifying, data-sharing, and accountability-oriented

practices through which vulnerable persons become institutionally visible, sortable,

actionable, deferrable, and sometimes abandonable. HMIS records, coordinated entry

assessments, shelter queues, vulnerability scores, discharge summaries,

case-conferencing notes, and housing eligibility matrices are, in Schmidt's vocabulary,

coordinative artifacts; in Smith's vocabulary, active texts; in Garfinkel and Bittner's

vocabulary, practical organizational accomplishments. And they are, in the extendedanalysis developed across this essay, the mechanisms through which documentary

allocation of institutional visibility determines who receives institutional response and

who does not.

A person who cannot be rendered in institutionally recognizable documentary

form — whose substance use history does not match the format of the intake form,

whose housing trajectory does not fit the categories of the coordinated entry system,

whose presenting condition is not legible to the risk assessment instrument, whose

archival history has been erased by retention schedules, whose records are fragmented

across incompatible systems — may not receive institutional response. Administrative

death begins as documentary death: the failure to constitute a person as a recognizable

case within the documentary machinery of institutional provision. The social autopsy

of institutional abandonment is, in significant part, a documentary autopsy: a

reconstruction of the record-producing, category-applying, evidence-generating

practices through which a person's needs were — or were not — rendered

institutionally visible, actionable, and worthy of response.

This is what the sociology of documentary organization contributes to the

sociology of abandonment: not a claim that documents are all that matters, but an

argument that documents are one of the mechanisms through which everything else —

care, response, survival, or abandonment — becomes institutionally possible or

impossible. The tradition that runs from Garfinkel and Bittner through Zimmerman and

Smith to the present essay has developed, across six decades, the conceptual and

empirical tools to make that argument with precision.

Endnotes

1. On the constitutive role of records in organizational life, see the programmatic statements in Garfinkel

(1967), Smith (1974, 1984, 1990a), and Berg (1997). For useful overviews of the

ethnomethodological approach to documents, see Heritage (1984, chapter 4). On the broader

tradition of organizational ethnomethodology, see Button (1991).

2. This genealogy is partially mapped in Smith (2005) and Campbell and Gregor (2002). A

comprehensive multi-generational review has not previously been assembled. For related

overviews emphasizing workplace studies and CSCW, see Luff, Hindmarsh, and Heath (2000). For

reviews emphasizing the institutional ethnographic branch, see DeVault (2006) and Rankin and

Campbell (2006).3. Garfinkel, Harold, and Egon Bittner. 1967. "Good Organizational Reasons for 'Bad' Clinical Records."

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

186–207.

4. On indexicality and practical reasoning in organizational settings, see Garfinkel (1967, especially

chapters 1 and 3) and Heritage (1984, chapters 4–5). On the "seen but unnoticed" character of

practical organizational knowledge, see Zimmerman and Pollner (1970).

5. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. On the et

cetera clause, see pp. 4–7, 38–42.

6. Bittner, Egon. 1967. "The Police on Skid Row: A Study of Peace Keeping." American Sociological

Review 32(5):699–715.

7. Cicourel, Aaron. 1968. The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice. New York: Wiley.

8. On the dossier and institutional biography, see Goffman (1961) on the "moral career." On the

prospective constitution of the institutional person through documentation, see Zimmerman (1969).

9. Cicourel, Aaron. 1964. Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: Free Press. Cicourel,

Aaron. 1973. Cognitive Sociology. London: Penguin.

10. Zimmerman, Don H. 1969. "Record-Keeping and the Intake Process in a Public Welfare Agency." In

Stanton Wheeler, ed., On Record: Files and Dossiers in American Life. New York: Russell Sage,

pp. 319–354.

11. On the Santa Barbara organizational ethnomethodology, see Zimmerman and Pollner (1970). On

structures-in-action, see Wilson (1991). For an overview of the UCSB tradition, see Maynard and

Clayman (1991), "The Diversity of Ethnomethodology," Annual Review of Sociology 17:385–418.

See also Mellinger (2026), "The Santa Barbara School of Ethnomethodology and Conversation

Analysis," Doing Modernity, 10 January 2026.

12. On the conversation analytic study of emergency calls, see Zimmerman (1992), "The Interactional

Organization of Calls for Emergency Assistance," in Drew and Heritage, eds., Talk at Work, pp.

418–469. See also the essays in Boden and Zimmerman (1991), Talk and Social Structure.

13. Smith, Dorothy E. 1974. "The Social Construction of Documentary Reality." Sociological Inquiry

44(4):257–268.

14. Smith, Dorothy E. 1978. "K Is Mentally Ill: The Anatomy of a Factual Account." Sociology

12(1):23–53.

15. Smith, Dorothy E. 1990a. The Conceptual Practices of Power. Boston: Northeastern University

Press. Smith, Dorothy E. 1990b. Texts, Facts, and Femininity. London: Routledge.

16. Smith, Dorothy E. 1984. "Textually Mediated Social Organisation." International Social Science

Journal 36(1):59–75.

17. Smith, Dorothy E. "Textual Realities, Ruling, and the Suppression of Disjuncture." In The

Conceptual Practices of Power, pp. 62–73.

18. Smith, Dorothy E. 2005. Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Lanham, MD: AltaMira

Press.19. Meehan, Albert J. 1986. "Record-Keeping Practices in the Policing of Juveniles." Urban Life

15(1):70–102.

20. Meehan, Albert J. 2000. "The Organizational Career of Gang Statistics: The Politics of Policing

Gangs." Sociological Quarterly 41(3):337–370.

21. Whalen, Jack, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1990. "Describing Trouble: Practical Epistemology in

Citizen Calls to the Police." Language in Society 19(4):465–492. Whalen, Jack, Don H.

Zimmerman, and Marilyn R. Whalen. 1988. "When Words Fail: A Single Case Analysis." Social

Problems 35(4):335–362.

22. On the interrupted dispatching case, see Whalen, Zimmerman, and Whalen (1988).

23. Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 1992. "Talk-as-Work: The Case of Paramedic Calls for Emergency Field

Orders." Current Research in Occupations and Professions 7.

24. Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 1992. "Accomplishing Fact in Police 'Dispatch Packages': An Analysis of

the Situated Construction of an Organizational Record." Perspectives on Social Problems 4.

25. Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 1994. "Negotiated Orders: The Negotiation of Directives in

Paramedic-Nurse Interactions." Symbolic Interaction.

26. Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 2026. "Jack Whalen and the Documentary Constitution of Organizational

Reality." Doing Modernity, 28 February 2026. Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 2026. "The Documentary

Constitution of Organizational Reality: A Research Program." Doing Modernity, 14 March 2026.

See also Mellinger (2025), "Workplace Studies and Critical Interactionism," Doing Modernity, 15

November 2025.

27. On the migration of organizational ethnomethodology into workplace studies and CSCW, see Button

(1993), ed., Technology in Working Order, and Luff, Hindmarsh, and Heath (2000), Workplace

Studies.

28. Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 2025. "EM/CA AT XEROX PARC." Doing Modernity, 14 October 2025.

29. Suchman, Lucy. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine

Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30. Whalen, Jack. 1995. "A Technology of Order Production: Computer-Aided Dispatch in Public Safety

Communications." In ten Have and Psathas, eds., Situated Order.

31. Schmidt, Kjeld, and Carla Simone. 1996. "Coordination Mechanisms: Towards a Conceptual

Foundation of CSCW Systems Design." Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 5(2–3):155–200.

Schmidt, Kjeld. 1999. "Of Maps and Scripts." Computer-Supported Cooperative Work

8(1–2):73–86.

32. Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff. 2000. Technology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

33. Harper, Richard H. R. 1998. Inside the IMF: An Ethnography of Documents, Technology, and

Organisational Action. San Diego: Academic Press.

34. Berg, Marc. 1997. Rationalizing Medical Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

35. Schryer, Catherine F. 1993. "Records as Genre." Written Communication 10(2):200–234.36. Maynard, Douglas W. 2003. Bad News, Good News. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Turowetz, Jason, and Douglas Maynard. 2019. "Documenting Diagnoses: From Interaction to

Institutional Record." Qualitative Sociology 42(1):1–30.

37. Maynard, Douglas W., and Jason Turowetz. 2017. "Doing Abstraction: Interactional Foundations of

Diagnostic Assessment in Autism Screening." Social Psychology Quarterly 80(1):27–57.

38. On the sociology of archives, see Schwartz and Cook (2002), "Archives, Records, and Power,"

Archival Science 2(1–2):1–19, and Cook (2011).

39. Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

40. Nichols, Naomi. 2014. Youth Work: An Institutional Ethnography of Youth Homelessness. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

41. Rosenberg, Erin, Naomi Nichols, and Susan Cullingham. 2020. "Workarounds to Mandated Data

Practices." British Journal of Social Work 50(7):2045–2064.

42. Yamaguchi, Kazue, et al. 2021. "Towards Youth-Centered Information Practices to Support Youth

Facing Homelessness." The International Journal on Homelessness 1(1):1–19.

43. Malenfant, Julie, Alexis Watchorn, and Naomi Nichols. 2022. "Beyond Participation: Youth-Led

Activism and Direct Action in Homelessness." Social Sciences 11(7):303.

44. For structural critiques of ethnomethodology's micro-focus, see Giddens (1976), New Rules of

Sociological Method, and Gouldner (1970), The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. The most

sophisticated response is Heritage (1984), chapter 8.

45. On the relationship between embodiment and documentary mediation, see Mol (2002), The Body

Multiple, and Timmermans and Berg (2003), The Gold Standard.

46. For Foucauldian critiques of ethnomethodological voluntarism, see Rose (1990), Governing the Soul.

The most sustained response from the workaround literature is Rosenberg, Nichols, and

Cullingham (2020).

47. On counter-documentation as political practice, see Caswell (2014), Archiving the Unspeakable. On

testimony and counter-narrative, see DeVault (1999), Liberatory Social Science.

48. On algorithmic governance and automated decision-making, see Eubanks (2018), Automating

Inequality; Noble (2018), Algorithms of Oppression; and Pasquale (2015), The Black Box Society.

Bibliography

Primary Works

Berg, Marc. 1997. Rationalizing Medical Work: Decision-Support Techniques and Medical

Practices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Berg, Marc, and Annemarie Mol. 1998. Differences in Medicine: Unraveling Practices,

Techniques, and Bodies. Durham: Duke University Press.Bittner, Egon. 1965. "The Concept of Organization." Social Research 32(3):239–255.

Bittner, Egon. 1967. "The Police on Skid Row: A Study of Peace Keeping." American

Sociological Review 32(5):699–715.

Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its

Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Campbell, Marie, and Frances Gregor. 2002. Mapping Social Relations: A Primer in Doing

Institutional Ethnography. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Cicourel, Aaron. 1964. Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: Free Press.

Cicourel, Aaron. 1968. The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice. New York: Wiley.

Cicourel, Aaron. 1973. Cognitive Sociology. London: Penguin.

Cullingham, Susan, Naomi Nichols, and Erin Rosenberg. 2019. "The Work of Youth

Homelessness Prevention in Ontario." Canadian Review of Social Policy 79:1–26.

Eubanks, Virginia. 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and

Punish the Poor. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.

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

Garfinkel, Harold, and Egon Bittner. 1967. "Good Organizational Reasons for 'Bad' Clinical

Records." In Harold Garfinkel, Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, pp. 186–207.

Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other

Inmates. Garden City: Anchor.

Harper, Richard H. R. 1998. Inside the IMF: An Ethnography of Documents, Technology, and

Organisational Action. San Diego: Academic Press.

Heath, Christian. 1986. Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff. 2000. Technology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

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

Luff, Paul, Jon Hindmarsh, and Christian Heath, eds. 2000. Workplace Studies: Recovering

Work Practice and Informing System Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malenfant, Julie, Alexis Watchorn, and Naomi Nichols. 2022. "Beyond Participation:

Youth-Led Activism and Direct Action in Homelessness." Social Sciences 11(7):303.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 Jason Turowetz. 2017. "Doing Abstraction: Interactional

Foundations of Diagnostic Assessment in Autism Screening." Social Psychology

Quarterly 80(1):27–57.

Meehan, Albert J. 1986. "Record-Keeping Practices in the Policing of Juveniles." Urban Life

15(1):70–102.

Meehan, Albert J. 1993. "Internal Police Records and the Control of Juveniles." British Journal

of Criminology 33(4):504–524.

Meehan, Albert J. 2000. "The Organizational Career of Gang Statistics: The Politics of

Policing Gangs." Sociological Quarterly 41(3):337–370.

Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 1992. "Talk-as-Work: The Case of Paramedic Calls for Emergency

Field Orders." Current Research in Occupations and Professions 7.

Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 1992. "Accomplishing Fact in Police 'Dispatch Packages': An

Analysis of the Situated Construction of an Organizational Record." Perspectives on

Social Problems 4.

Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 1994. "Negotiated Orders: The Negotiation of Directives in

Paramedic-Nurse Interactions." Symbolic Interaction.

Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 2025. "EM/CA AT XEROX PARC." Doing Modernity, 14 October

2025.

Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 2025. "Workplace Studies and Critical Interactionism." Doing

Modernity, 15 November 2025.

Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 2026. "Jack Whalen and the Documentary Constitution of

Organizational Reality." Doing Modernity, 28 February 2026.

Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 2026. "The Documentary Constitution of Organizational Reality: A

Research Program." Doing Modernity, 14 March 2026.

Nichols, Naomi. 2014. Youth Work: An Institutional Ethnography of Youth Homelessness.

Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Noble, Safiya Umoja. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce

Racism. New York: New York University Press.

Pasquale, Frank. 2015. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and

Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rosenberg, Erin, Naomi Nichols, and Susan Cullingham. 2020. "Workarounds to Mandated

Data Practices: Reconciling Frontline Work and Digital Systems in Child Welfare and

Homelessness Sectors." British Journal of Social Work 50(7):2045–2064.Schmidt, Kjeld, and Liam Bannon. 1992. "Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation

Work." Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 1(1–2):7–40.

Schmidt, Kjeld, and Carla Simone. 1996. "Coordination Mechanisms: Towards a Conceptual

Foundation of CSCW Systems Design." Computer-Supported Cooperative Work

5(2–3):155–200.

Schmidt, Kjeld. 1999. "Of Maps and Scripts: The Status of Formal Constructs in Cooperative

Work." Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 8(1–2):73–86.

Schryer, Catherine F. 1993. "Records as Genre." Written Communication 10(2):200–234.

Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human

Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Smith, Dorothy E. 1974. "The Social Construction of Documentary Reality." Sociological

Inquiry 44(4):257–268.

Smith, Dorothy E. 1978. "K Is Mentally Ill: The Anatomy of a Factual Account." Sociology

12(1):23–53.

Smith, Dorothy E. 1984. "Textually Mediated Social Organisation." International Social

Science Journal 36(1):59–75.

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

Northeastern University Press.

Smith, Dorothy E. 1990a. The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of

Knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Smith, Dorothy E. 1990b. Texts, Facts, and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling.

London: Routledge.

Smith, Dorothy E. 1999. Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Smith, Dorothy E. 2005. Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Lanham, MD:

AltaMira Press.

Star, Susan Leigh, and Anselm Strauss. 1999. "Layers of Silence, Arenas of Voice: The

Ecology of Visible and Invisible Work." Computer-Supported Cooperative Work

8(1–2):9–30.

Suchman, Lucy. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine

Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Suchman, Lucy. 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. 2nd ed.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, Linnet. 2017. "What Is Data Justice? The Case for Connecting Digital Rights and

Freedoms Globally." Big Data and Society 4(2):1–14.Timmermans, Stefan, and Marc Berg. 2003. The Gold Standard: The Challenge of

Evidence-Based Medicine and Standardization in Health Care. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.

Turowetz, Jason, and Douglas Maynard. 2016. "Blame Fortification, Moral Responsibility, and

Sequential Organization in the Diagnostic Process." Sociology of Health and Illness

38(6):878–891.

Turowetz, Jason, and Douglas Maynard. 2019. "Documenting Diagnoses: From Interaction to

Institutional Record." Qualitative Sociology 42(1):1–30.

Whalen, Jack. 1995. "A Technology of Order Production: Computer-Aided Dispatch in Public

Safety Communications." In Paul ten Have and George Psathas, eds., Situated Order.

Washington: University Press of America.

Whalen, Jack, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1990. "Describing Trouble: Practical Epistemology in

Citizen Calls to the Police." Language in Society 19(4):465–492.

Whalen, Jack, Don H. Zimmerman, and Marilyn R. Whalen. 1988. "When Words Fail: A

Single Case Analysis." Social Problems 35(4):335–362.

Yamaguchi, Kazue, et al. 2021. "Towards Youth-Centered Information Practices to Support

Youth Facing Homelessness." The International Journal on Homelessness 1(1):1–19.

Zimmerman, Don H. 1969. "Record-Keeping and the Intake Process in a Public Welfare

Agency." In Stanton Wheeler, ed., On Record: Files and Dossiers in American Life.

New York: Russell Sage, pp. 319–354.

Zimmerman, Don H. 1970. "The Practicalities of Rule Use." In Jack D. Douglas, ed.,

Understanding Everyday Life. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 221–238.

Zimmerman, Don H. 1992. "The Interactional Organization of Calls for Emergency

Assistance." In Paul Drew and John Heritage, eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, pp. 418–469.

Zimmerman, Don H., and Melvin Pollner. 1970. "The Everyday World as a Phenomenon." In

Jack D. Douglas, ed., Understanding Everyday Life. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 80–103.