Uprichard, Emma (2016) Reply to Smith and Atkinson. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19 (1). pp. 131-136. doi:10.1080/13645579.2015.1068011

Research output not available from this repository.

Request-a-Copy directly from author or use local Library Get it For Me service.

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

Smith and Atkinson have written a useful reflection of Aaron Cicourel’s Method and Measurement (M&M). I urge anyone who has not read Cicourel’s original book to take their synopsis as a serious account that beautifully summarises some of the key ways of reading M&M. For those who already know the book, read the synopsis anyway; it will tell you something new and remind you of other aspects about which you may have forgotten. Their account of M&M is, I think, especially helpful for three main reasons. First, it offers an excellent synthesis of the book’s main arguments. Second, it brings out the some of the relevance of why Cicourel’s work is relevant today – more about this below. Third, it is reflective and situates the work within a longer historical context, which is always useful in being able to better understand the making and meaning of a text.

Item Type:	Journal Item
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies
Journal or Publication Title:	International Journal of Social Research Methodology
Publisher:	Routledge
ISSN:	1364-5579
Official Date:	2016
Dates:	Date Event 2016 Published 18 December 2015 Available
Volume:	19
Number:	1
Page Range:	pp. 131-136
DOI:	10.1080/13645579.2015.1068011
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item