Hybridity of hybrid studies of work: Examination of informing practitioners in practice

The achievement of topical relevance to the parties of the research is a common aim in qualitative approaches in the social sciences, and ethnomethodology is no exception. Harold Garfinkel sought to realise this aim by introducing the notion of hybridity, with which he attempted to merge the topic of ethnomethodological studies with the investigative topic treated by members in the field. While he is known to have set a high standard for researchers, particularly in terms of the unique adequacy requirement, there are cases of hybridisation of studies that provided practical value to the practitioners, indicating that they were of topical relevance to them. Thus, while ethnomethodological principles have been mostly discussed in methodological arguments for producing adequate descriptions, this paper explores the principles in the context of hybridisation of studies in practice. First, the paper examines Garfinkel’s arguments on hybrid studies of work as a radical restatement of principles of ethnomethodological studies; second, it examines a case of hybridisation of a hybrid study of emergency control to show the distinctiveness of his solution to the issue of topical relevance to the parties. The examination demonstrates how hybridisation of studies with the specific audience/reader’s corpus of knowledge is carried out within the constraints of the study, within which the presentation is embedded. It also demonstrates how the hybridity of hybrid studies achieved through collaboration between ethnomethodology and emergency control is treated as the basis of its hybridisation with management, including both demonstrations of descriptions of work and suggestions made by the researcher. These demonstrations will reveal how policies of ethnomethodological studies are critical to the hybridisation of hybrid studies.