Reply to Smith and Atkinson
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12594867 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Emma Uprichard (0000-0001-6515-0219, University of Warwick, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 131-136 |
| Publication date | 2015-12-18 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Social Research Methodology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1364-5579 • E-ISSN: 1464-5300 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/13645579.2015.1068011 |
| OpenAlex | W2209978233 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 6 |
Smith and Atkinson have written a useful reflection of Aaron Cicourel’s Method and Measurement (MM 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
Epistemology · Sociology · Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science · Social and Cultural Dynamics
| Highly cited | No |
|---|