In some of his writings, George Psathas suggests that Alfred Schutz’s account of social-scientific methodology as constructing ideal types falls short of ethnomethodology’s approach, which, by giving an account of how actors produce their social order, exemplifies a kind of social-scientific following of Husserl’s stipulation that phenomenology return to “the things themselves”. By distinguishing Schutz’s phenomenology of the natural attitude which does return to the things themselves from his account of social scientific methodology, one can conceive various social-scientific methodologies legitimately serving different scientific purposes with reference to the life-world basis, for instance, ideal–typical methodologies that might seek solutions to problems and ethnomethodological methods that capture actors’ production of order and mimic the phenomenological return to the things themselves. Despite delineating this distinction between phenomenology and ethnomethodology, which Psathas too makes, ethnomethodology reveals many of the investigative tendencies of phenomenology and the two can be seen to engage each other indirectly and interactively. Finally, ethnomethodologists maintain some intellectual, relevance-guided distance from the everyday actors they study, however minimal the distance between them and the actors they study may be.

中文翻译：

---

George Psathas：现象学和民族方法学

在他的一些著作中，乔治·普萨萨斯认为阿尔弗雷德·舒茨 (Alfred Schutz) 将社会科学方法论作为构建理想类型的解释不符合民族方法学的方法，后者通过说明行动者如何产生他们的社会秩序，体现了一种社会科学遵循胡塞尔的规定，即现象学回归“事物本身”。通过将舒茨的回归事物本身的自然态度现象学与他对社会科学方法论的解释区分开来，人们可以设想各种社会科学方法论，参照生活世界的基础，合法地服务于不同的科学目的，例如，可能寻求问题解决方案的理想-典型方法论和捕捉行动者秩序生产并模仿事物本身的现象学回归的民族方法论方法。尽管 Psathas 也对现象学和民族方法学进行了区分，但民族方法学揭示了现象学的许多研究趋势，并且可以看到两者间接和互动地相互接触。最后，民族方法学家与他们研究的日常行为者保持一定的智力、相关性引导的距离，无论他们与他们研究的行为者之间的距离有多小。民族方法论揭示了现象学的许多研究倾向，并且可以看出两者间接和互动地相互接触。最后，民族方法学家与他们研究的日常行为者保持一定的智力、相关性引导的距离，无论他们与他们研究的行为者之间的距离有多小。民族方法论揭示了现象学的许多研究倾向，并且可以看出两者间接和互动地相互接触。最后，民族方法学家与他们研究的日常行为者保持一定的智力、相关性引导的距离，无论他们与他们研究的行为者之间的距离有多小。