The notion of member is the heart of the matter: on the role of membership knowledge in ethnomethodological inquiry

In ethnomethodological inquiries, the tension between "subjectivity" and "objectivity" which is inherent in all qualitative social research, takes special meanings. In fact, those terms are rarely used in ethnomethodological research reports, or methodological writings. What is widely implied and often explicitly recognised, however, is that an ethnomethodologist has to "understand" the practices studied, before they can be analysed, and that this "understanding" involves the researcher using his or her "membership knowledge". In a way, this unavoidable use of membership knowledge for understanding what people are doing, is then turned from a implicit resource into an explicit topic for analysis. This can be illustrated by a consideration of the two research strategies for which ethnomethodology has become (ill-) famous, the "breaching experiments" initiated by its founder Harold GARFINKEL, and the use of recordings and transcripts of verbal interaction by ethno-methodology's most successful off-shoot, Conversation Analysis as initiated by Harvey SACKS. Varieties of a third strategy, ethnography, including the ethnography of specific (sub-) cultural practices, of technology use, and auto-ethnography, will also be discussed for it

Understanding Qualitative Research and Ethnomethodology

This book provides a discussion of qualitative research methods from an ethnomethodological perspective. Detailed yet concise, Paul ten Have\u27s text explores the complex relation between the more traditional methods of qualitative social research and the discipline of ethnomethodology. It draws on examples from both ethnomethodological studies and the wider field of qualitative research to discuss critically an array of methods for qualitative data collection and analysis. Key features of the book include: • A broad coverage - includes discussions of interviewing, the use of documents, ethnography, and methods of data analysis • An understanding of different research traditions and illustrations of how these may be used in practice • Concise chapter summaries and further reading sections to aid student learning With a student-friendly structure, this engaging book will be an invaluable resource for both students and researchers across the social sciences

Prioritising targets for biological control of weeds - a decision support tool for policy makers

This report outlines a framework of the overall process of prioritising targets for biological control and includes a decision support tool that enables policy makers to determine whether biological control is a suitable option for a proposed target species.Introduction Establishing effective biological control agents in Australia is costly in both resources and time, yet it is often a valuable component of weed control. It has been estimated that biological control of weeds in Australia has provided around $10 billion worth of agricultural protection over the past century. To date significant investment has been made in the selection process of biocontrol agents and the identification of priority weeds for biocontrol. However there is no nationally agreed system that facilitates prioritisation of weed targets for biological control. The Department of Agriculture commissioned ABARES to develop:• a framework that outlines the overall process of prioritising targets for biological control and• a decision support tool that enables policy makers to determine whether biological control is a suitable option for the proposed target species.A recent work related to the selection and prioritisation of weeds for biological control targets was published by Paynter et al 2009 (hereafter \u27Paynter\u27). Paynter was used as a basis for discussion about how to assist policy makers in assessing whether biocontrol is an appropriate option for weed control.The proposal for a decision support tool for policy makers was discussed at a workshop fully recognising that such a system would need to have a science basis that is both transparent and repeatable to be rigorous. The participants were experts in biocontrol or other weed science, state representatives and other relevant stakeholders. The proposal was outlined in a background/discussion paper and provided to participants prior to the workshop. The purpose of the paper was to provide participants with relevant background information and a proposed approach for a decision support tool for policy makers to be debated and progressed at the workshop.Aim of the workshop and background/discussion paper The workshop was held in Canberra on 4 April 2013. The objectives of the workshop were to:• discuss whether the approach based on Paynter is suitable as a decision support tool at the policy level to prioritise targets for biological control• reach a consensus amongst workshop participants on key principles that need to be considered in the prioritisation process of biological control targetsSuggestions made at the workshop are addressed in this report. Many of the concerns raised at the workshop corresponded with the common \u27core\u27 issues recorded in Paynter. These include concerns about lack of data, the tendency of the framework to overlook weeds outside the Weeds of National Significance, concerns that weightings are arbitrary, and a need for the framework to be able to anticipate emergent weeds and potential future problems. Here, those issues that are relevant to policy have been considered with the acknowledgement that remaining \u27core\u27 issues need to be addressed elsewhere