1982 年 37 巻 p. 20-33,en234
Karabel and Halsey's 1977 review on research trends in Power and Ideology in Education, is very suggestive for students of the sociology of education. However, their criiticsms to the interpretive paradigm are not pertinent, as far as ethnomethodology is concerned. This paper examines their comments and assess the effectiveness of ethnomethodology in the educational research. Ethnomethodology is expectd to contribute to the educational research in the following senses. First, it has the possibility to analyze directly the educational process without leaving the process of schooling “black box.” Second, it has the possibility to ensure the academic, sociological research against the present-day trend of institutionalization of research (“researchism”). References were also made to the characteristics of ethnomethodological studies such as the use of audio-visual aids for data collection, immanent analysis of interaction in the classroom, and meaning of socialization. There are some basic misunderstandings in Karabel and Halsey's criticism to ethnomethodological studies. It seems to be partly due to the fact that their arguments are based on the British “new” sociology of education, and partly due to the fact that their own position is that of Durkheimism, which is strikingly contrast to the ethnomethodology.