Symbolic interactionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological theory that develops from practical considerations and alludes to people's particular utilization of dialect to make images and normal implications, for deduction and correspondence with others.[1] In other words, it is a frame of reference to better understand how individuals interact with one another to create symbolic worlds, and in return, how these worlds shape individual behaviors.[2] It is a framework that helps understand how society is preserved and created through repeated interactions between individuals. The interpretation process that occurs between interactions help create and recreate meaning. It is the shared understanding and interpretations of meaning that affect the interaction between individuals.

Symbolic interactionism comes from a sociological perspective which developed around the middle of the twentieth century and that continues to be influential in some areas of the discipline. It is particularly important in microsociology and social psychology. It is derived from the American philosophy of pragmatism and particularly from the work of George Herbert Mead, as a pragmatic method to interpret social interactions.[3]

History[edit]

George Herbert Mead[edit]

Symbolic interaction was conceived by George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley. Mead argued that people's selves are social products, but that these selves are also purposive and creative, and believed that the true test of any theory was that it was "useful in solving complex social problems".[4] Mead's influence was said to be so powerful that sociologists regard him as the one "true founder" of the symbolic interactionism tradition. Although Mead taught in a philosophy department, he is best known by sociologists as the teacher who trained a generation of the best minds in their field. Strangely, he never set forth his wide-ranging ideas in a book or systematic treatise. After his death in 1931, his students pulled together class notes and conversations with their mentor and published Mind, Self and Society in his name.[4] It is a common misconception that John Dewey was the leader of this sociological theory; according to The Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism, Mead was undoubtedly the individual who "transformed the inner structure of the theory, moving it to a higher level of theoretical complexity".[5] Mind, Self and Society is the book published by Mead's students based on his lectures and teaching, and the title of the book highlights the core concept of social interactionism. Mind refers to an individual's ability to use symbols to create meanings for the world around the individual – individuals use language and thought to accomplish this goal. Self refers to an individual's ability to reflect on the way that the individual is perceived by others. Finally, society, according to Mead, is where all of these interactions are taking place. A general description of Mead's compositions portray how outside social structures, classes, and power and abuse affect the advancement of self, personality for gatherings verifiably denied of the ability to characterize themselves.[6]

Herbert Blumer[edit]

Herbert Blumer, a student and interpreter of Mead, coined the term and put forward an influential summary: people act a certain way towards things based on the meaning those things already have, and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation.[7] Blumer was a social constructionist, and was influenced by John Dewey; as such, this theory is very phenomenologically-based. Given that Blumer was the first to use symbolic interaction as a term, he is known as the founder of symbolic interaction.[8] He believed that the "Most human and humanizing activity that people engage in is talking to each other."[4] According to Blumer, human groups are created by people and it is only actions between them that define a society.[9] He argued that with interaction and through interaction individuals are able to "produce common symbols by approving, arranging, and redefining them."[9] Having said that, interaction is shaped by a mutual exchange of interpretation, the ground of socialization.[3]

Other theorists[edit]

Two other theorists who have influenced symbolic interaction theory are Yrjö Engeström and David Middleton. Engeström and Middleton explained the usefulness of symbolic interactionism in the communication field in a variety of work settings, including "courts of law, health care, computer software design, scientific laboratory, telephone sales, control, repair, and maintenance of advanced manufacturing systems".[10] Other scholars credited for their contribution to the theory are Thomas, Park, James, Horton Cooley, Znaniecki, Baldwin, Redfield, and Wirth.[9] Unlike other social sciences, symbolic interactionism emphasizes greatly on the ideas of action instead of culture, class and power. According to behaviorism, Darwinism, pragmatism, as well as Max Weber, action theory contributed significantly to the formation of social interactionism as a theoretical perspective in communication studies.[3]

Assumptions, premises, and research methodology[edit]

Assumptions[edit]

Most symbolic interactionists believe a physical reality does indeed exist by an individual's social definitions, and that social definitions do develop in part or in relation to something "real". People thus do not respond to this reality directly, but rather to the social understanding of reality; i.e., they respond to this reality indirectly through a kind of filter which consists of individuals' different perspectives. This means that humans exist not in the physical space composed of realities, but in the "world" composed only of "objects".

Three assumptions frame symbolic interactionism:[2]

  1. Individuals construct meaning via the communication process.
  2. Self-concept is a motivation for behavior.
  3. A unique relationship exists between the individual and society.

Having defined some of the underlying assumptions of symbolic interactionism, it is necessary to address the premises that each assumption supports. According to Blumer, there are three premises that can be derived from the assumptions above.[9]

Premises[edit]

Premise 1: "Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."

The first premise includes everything that a human being may note in their world, including physical objects, actions and concepts. Essentially, individuals behave towards objects and others based on the personal meanings that the individual has already given these items. Blumer was trying to put emphasis on the meaning behind individual behaviors, specifically speaking, psychological and sociological explanations for those actions and behaviors.[9]

Premise 2: "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society."

The second premise explains the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with other humans. Blumer, following Mead, claimed people interact with each other by interpreting or defining each other's actions instead of merely reacting to each other's actions. Their "response" is not made directly to the actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to such actions. Thus, human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols and signification, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions.[9] Meaning is either, taken for granted and pushed aside as an unimportant element which need not to be investigated, or it is regarded as a mere neutral link or one of the causal chains between the causes or factors responsible for human behavior and this behavior as the product of such factors.[9]

Premise 3: "The Meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters.

Symbolic interactionists describe thinking as an inner conversation.[4] Mead called this inner dialogue minding, which is the delay in one's thought process that happens when one thinks about what they will do next. These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process[11] used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters. We naturally talk to ourselves in order to sort out the meaning of a difficult situation. But first, we need language. Before we can think, we must be able to interact symbolically.[4] The emphasis on symbols, negotiated meaning, and social construction of society brought attention to the roles people play. Role-taking is a key mechanism that permits people to see another person's perspective to understand what an action might mean to another person. Role-taking is a part of our lives at an early age, for instance, playing house and pretending to be someone else. There is an improvisational quality of roles; however, actors often take on a script that they follow. Because of the uncertainty of roles in social contexts, the burden of role-making is on the person in the situation. In this sense, we are proactive participants in our environment.[12]

Research methodology[edit]

The majority of interactionist research uses qualitative research methods, like participant observation, to study aspects of social interaction, and/or individuals' selves. Participant observation allows researchers to access symbols and meanings, as in Howard S. Becker's Art Worlds and Arlie Hochschild's The Managed Heart.[13] They argue that close contact and immersion in the everyday activities of the participants is necessary for understanding the meaning of actions, defining situations and the process that actors construct the situation through their interaction. Because of this close contact, interactions cannot remain completely liberated of value commitments. In most cases, they make use of their values in choosing what to study; however, they seek to be objective in how they conduct the research. Therefore, the symbolic-interaction approach is a micro-level orientation focusing on human interaction in specific situations.

Five central ideas[edit]

There are five central ideas to symbolic interactionism according to Joel M. Charon, author of Symbolic Interactionism An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration:[14]

  1. "The human being must be understood as a social person. It is the constant search for social interaction that leads us to do what we do. Instead of focusing on the individual and his or her personality, or on how the society or social situation causes human behavior, symbolic interactionism focuses on the activities that take place between actors. Interaction is the basic unit of study. Individuals are created through interaction; society too is created through social interaction. What we do depends on interaction with others earlier in our lifetimes, and it depends on our interaction right now. Social interaction is central to what we do. If we want to understand cause, focus on social interaction.
  2. The human being must be understood as a thinking being. Human action is not only interaction among individuals but also interaction within the individual. It is not our ideas or attitudes or values that are as important as the constant active ongoing process of thinking. We are not simply conditioned, we are not simply beings who are influenced by those around us, we are not simply products of society. We are, to our very core, thinking animals, always conversing with ourselves as we interact with others. If we want to understand cause, focus on human thinking.
  3. Humans do not sense their environment directly, instead, humans define the situation they are in. An environment may actually exist, but it is our definition of it that is important. Definition does not simply randomly happen; instead, it results from ongoing social interaction and thinking.
  4. The cause of human action is the result of what is occurring in our present situation. Cause unfolds in the present social interaction, present thinking, and present definition. It is not society's encounters with us in our past, that causes action nor is it our own past experience that does. It is, instead, social interaction, thinking, definition of the situation that takes place in the present. Our past enters into our actions primarily because we think about it and apply it to the definition of the present situation.
  5. Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment. Words such as conditioning, responding, controlled, imprisoned, and formed are not used to describe the human being in symbolic interaction. In contrast to other social-scientific perspectives humans are not thought of as being passive in relation to their surroundings, but actively involved in what they do."

Central interactionist themes[edit]

To Blumer's conceptual perspective, he put them in three core principles: that people act toward things, including each other, on the basis of the meanings they have for them; that these meanings are derived through social interaction with others; and that these meanings are managed and transformed through an interpretive process that people use to make sense of and handle the objects that constitute their social worlds. Keeping Blumer's earlier work in mind David A. Snow, professor of sociology at the University of California, Irvine, suggests four broader and even more basic orienting principles: human agency, interactive determination, symbolization, and emergence. Snow uses these four principles as the thematic bases for identifying and discussing contributions to the study of social movements.

Human agency

Human agency emphasizes the active, willful, goal-seeking character of human actors. The emphasis on agency focuses attention on those actions, events, and moments in social life in which agentic action is especially palpable.

Interactive determination

Interactive determination specifies that understanding of focal objects of analysis, whether they are self-concepts, identities, roles, practices, or even social movements. Basically this means, neither individual, society, self, or others exist only in relation to each other and therefore can be fully understood only in terms of their interaction.

Symbolization

Symbolization highlights the processes through which events and conditions, artifacts, people, and other environmental features that take on particular meanings, becoming nearly only objects of orientation. Human behavior is partly contingent on what the object of orientation symbolizes or means.

Emergence

Emergence focuses on attention on the processual and non-habituated side of social life, focusing not only on organization and texture of social life, but also associated meaning and feelings. The principal of emergence tells us not only to possibility of new forms of social life and system meaning but also to transformations in existing forms of social organization.[5]

New media[edit]

New media is a term used to define all that is related to the internet and the interplay between technology, images and sound.[15] As studies of online community proliferate, the concept of online community has become a more accepted social construct. Studies encompassed discursive communities;[16][17] identity;[18][19] community as social reality;[20] networking;[21] the public sphere;[22] ease and anonymity in interactions.[23] These studies show that online community is an important social construct in terms of its cultural, structural, political and economic character.

It has been demonstrated that people's ideas about community are formed, in part, through interactions both in online forums and face-to-face. As a result, people act in their communities according to the meanings they derive about their environment, whether online or offline, from those interactions. This perspective reveals that online communication may very well take on different meanings for different people depending on information, circumstance, relationships, power, and other systems that make up communities of practice. People enact community the way it is conceived and the meaning of community evolves as they come up with new ways to utilize it. Given this reality, scholars are continually challenged to research and understand how online communities are comprised, how they function, and how they are connected to offline social life.[24]

Symbolic interaction theory was discussed in The Cyberself: The Self-ing Project goes online, Symbolic Interaction in the Digital Age. Laura Robinson discusses how symbolic interaction theory explains the way individuals create a sense of self through their interactions with others. However, she believes advances in technology have changed this. The article investigates the manner in which individuals form their online identity. She uses symbolic interaction theory to examine the formation of the cyber "I" and a digital "generalized other". In the article, Robinson suggests individuals form new identities on the internet. She argues these cyber identities are not necessarily the way the individual would be perceived offline.[25]

Criticisms[edit]

Symbolic interactionists are often criticized for being overly impressionistic in their research methods and somewhat unsystematic in their theories. It is argued that the theory is not one theory, but rather, the framework for many different theories. Additionally, some theorists have a problem with symbolic interaction theory due to its lack of testability. These objections, combined with the fairly narrow focus of interactionist research on small-group interactions and other social psychological issues, have relegated the interactionist camp to a minority position among sociologists (albeit a fairly substantial minority). Much of this criticism arose during the 1970s in the U.S. when quantitative approaches to sociology were dominant. Perhaps the best known of these is by Alvin Gouldner.[26]

Framework and theories[edit]

Some critiques of symbolic interactionism are based on the assumption that it is a theory, and the critiques apply the criteria for a "good" theory to something that does not claim to be a theory. Some critics find the symbolic interactionist framework too broad and general when they are seeking specific theories. Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical framework rather than a theory[27][28] and can be assessed on the basis of effective conceptualizations. The theoretical framework, as with any theoretical framework, is vague when it comes to analyzing empirical data or predicting outcomes in social life. As a framework rather than a theory, many scholars find it difficult to use. Interactionism being a framework rather than a theory makes it impossible to test interactionism in the manner that a specific theoretical claim about the relationship between specific variables in a given context allows. Unlike the symbolic interactionist framework, the many theories derived from symbolic interactionism, such as role theory and the versions of identity theory developed by Sheldon Stryker,[29][30] and Peter Burke and colleagues,[31][32] clearly define concepts and the relationships between them in a given context, thus allowing for the opportunity to develop and test hypotheses. Further, especially among Blumerian processual interactionists, a great number of very useful conceptualizations have been developed and applied in a very wide range of social contexts, types of populations, types of behaviors, and cultures and subcultures.

Social structure[edit]

Symbolic interactionism is often related and connected with social structure. This concept suggests that symbolic interactionism is a construction of people's social reality.[29] It also implies that from a realistic point of view, the interpretations that are being made will not make much difference. When the reality of a situation is defined, the situation becomes a meaningful reality. This includes methodological criticisms, and critical sociological issues. A number of symbolic interactionists have addressed these topics, the best known being Stryker's structural symbolic interactionism[29][33] and the formulations of interactionism heavily influenced by this approach (sometimes referred to as the "Indiana School" of symbolic interactionism), including the works of key scholars in sociology and psychology using different methods and theories applying a structural version of interactionism that are represented in a 2003 collection edited by Burke et al.[34] Another well-known structural variation of symbolic interactionism that applies quantitative methods is Manford H. Kuhn's formulation which is often referred to in sociological literature as the "Iowa School". "Negotiated order theory" also applies a structural approach.[35]

Language[edit]

Language is viewed as the source of all meaning.[12] Blumer illuminates several key features about social interactionism. Most people interpret things based on assignment and purpose. The interaction occurs once the meaning of something has become identified. This concept of meaning is what starts to construct the framework of social reality. By aligning social reality, Blumer suggests that language is the meaning of interaction. Communication, especially in the form of symbolic interactionism is connected with language. Language initiates all forms of communication, verbal and non-verbal. Blumer defines this source of meaning as a connection that arises out of the social interaction that people have with each other.

Critical perspective[edit]

According to social theorist Patricia Burbank, the concepts of synergistic and diverging properties are what shape the viewpoints of humans as social beings. These two concepts are different in a sense because of their views of human freedom and their level of focus. According to Burbank, actions are based on the effects of situations that occur during the process of social interaction. Another important factor in meaningful situations is the environment in which the social interaction occurs. The environment influences interaction, which leads to a reference group and connects with perspective, and then concludes to a definition of the situation. This illustrates the proper steps to define a situation. An approval of the action occurs once the situation is defined. An interpretation is then made upon that action, which may ultimately influence the perspective, action, and definition.

Stryker emphasizes that the sociology world at large is the most viable and vibrant intellectual framework.[29] By being made up of our thoughts and self-belief, the social interactionism theory is the purpose of all human interaction, and is what causes society to exist. This fuels criticisms of the symbolic interactionist framework for failing to account for social structure, as well as criticisms that interactionist theories cannot be assessed via quantitative methods, and cannot be falsifiable or tested empirically. Framework is important for the symbolic interaction theory because for in order for the social structure to form, there are certain bonds of communication that need to be established to create the interaction. Much of the symbolic interactionist framework's basic tenets can be found in a very wide range of sociological and psychological work, without being explicitly cited as interactionist, making the influence of symbolic interactionism difficult to recognize given this general acceptance of its assumptions as "common knowledge".

Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction[edit]

The Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction (SSSI)[7] is an international professional organization for scholars, who are interested in the study of symbolic interaction. SSSI holds a conference in conjunction with the meeting of the American Sociological Association and the Society for the Study of Social Problems. This conference typically occurs in August and sponsors the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction holds the Couch-Stone Symposium each spring. The society provides travel scholarships for student members interested in attending the annual conference.[36] At the annual conference, the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction sponsors yearly awards in different categories of symbolic interaction. Additionally, some of the awards are open to student members of the society. The Ellis-Bochner Autoethnography and Personal Narrative Research Award is given annually by the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction affiliate of the National Communication Association for the best article, essay, or book chapter in autoethnography and personal narrative research. The award is named after renowned autoethnographers Carolyn Ellis and Art Bochner. The society also sponsors a quarterly journal, Symbolic Interaction.[37] The organization also releases a newsletter, SSSI Notes.[36]

Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction has also the European branch.[38] It organizes each year the conference that integrates European symbolic interactionists.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Hall, Peter M. (2007). "Symbolic Interaction". Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology – via Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.
  2. ^ a b West, Richard L.; Turner, Lynn H. Introducing communication theory : analysis and application (6th ed.). New York, NY. ISBN 9781259870323. OCLC 967775008.
  3. ^ a b c Caglar, Sebnem; Alver, Fusun (2015). "The Impact of Symbolic Interactionism on Research Studies about Communication Science". International Journal of Arts and Sciences. 8: 479–484 – via Proquest.
  4. ^ a b c d e Griffin, Emory A.; Ledbetter, Andrew; Sparks, Glenn Grayson (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 9780073523927. OCLC 875554087.
  5. ^ a b Handbook of symbolic interactionism. Reynolds, Larry T., Herman-Kinney, Nancy J., 1958-. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. 2003. ISBN 0759100926. OCLC 51059349.
  6. ^ Brewster, Kiyona (August 2013). "Beyond Classic Symbolic Interactionism: Towards A Intersectional Reading Of George H. Mead's Mind, Self, And Society". Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association. Round Table at the American Sociological Association Research Conference, New York: 1–20 – via SocINDEX with Full Text.
  7. ^ a b Williams, Patrick; vom Lehn, Dirk. "Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction". sites.google.com.
  8. ^ Aksan, Nilgun; Kısac, Buket; Aydın, Mufit; Demirbuken, Sumeyra (2009-01-01). "Symbolic interaction theory". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. World Conference on Educational Sciences: New Trends and Issues in Educational Sciences. 1 (1): 902–904. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.160.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g Blumer, Herbert (1969). Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0138799245. OCLC 18071.
  10. ^ Middleton, David; Engeström, Yrjö (1998). Cognition and communication at work (Paperback ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521645662. OCLC 41578004.
  11. ^ This process occurs in the form of interaction with oneself or taking into account of taking into account. See the following paper: Kuwabara T., and K. Yamaguchi, 2013, An Introduction to the Sociological Perspective of Symbolic Interactionism, The Joint Journal of the National Universities in Kyushu, Education and Humanities, 1(1), pp. 1-11.
  12. ^ a b Garfinkel, Harold (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0745600050. OCLC 356659.
  13. ^ "Symbolic Interactionism". www.encyclopedia.com. International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family. Retrieved 2011-09-20.
  14. ^ Charon, Joel M. (2004). Symbolic Interactionism An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration. Boston: Pearson. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-13-605193-0.
  15. ^ Bailey Socha; Barbara Eber-Schmid. "What is new media?". www.newmedia.org. Archived from the original on 2 December 2012.
  16. ^ Reid, Elizabeth (February 1993). "Electronic Chat: Social Issues on Internet Relay Chat". Media Information Australia. 67 (1st): 62–70. doi:10.1177/1329878x9306700108. ISSN 0312-9616.
  17. ^ Howard, Tharon W. (September 1998). "A Rhetoric of Electronic Communities". College Composition and Communication. 50 (1): 126. doi:10.2307/358367. ISSN 0010-096X.
  18. ^ Tapsall, Suellen (June 1997). "Review & Booknote: Cultures of Internet: Virtual Spaces, Real Histories, Living Bodies". Media International Australia. 84 (1): 147–148. doi:10.1177/1329878x9708400136. ISSN 1324-5325.
  19. ^ Kollock, Peter; Smith, Marc (17 December 1998). "Communities in Cyberspace" (1 ed.). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203194959.
  20. ^ Jones, Steven G. (2002). Virtual culture : identity and communication in cybersociety. London: Sage. pp. 102–32. ISBN 9780761955269. OCLC 1035430865.
  21. ^ Wellman, Barry (September 1996). An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social Network (PDF). Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
  22. ^ Ess, Charles (1996). Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 197–230. ISBN 0585042829. OCLC 42854737.
  23. ^ Anthropologist Wows Personal Democracy Forum. Whatever. Shelley Dubois. Wired Magazine. 30 June 2009.
  24. ^ Fernback, Jan (February 2007). "Beyond the diluted community concept: a symbolic interactionist perspective on online social relations". New Media & Society. 9 (1): 49–69. doi:10.1177/1461444807072417. ISSN 1461-4448.
  25. ^ Robinson, Laura (February 2007). "The cyberself: the self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the digital age". New Media & Society. 9 (1): 93–110. doi:10.1177/1461444807072216. ISSN 1461-4448.
  26. ^ Gouldner, Alvin Ward (1971). The coming crisis of western sociology. London: Heinemann. ISBN 0435821504. OCLC 16192914.
  27. ^ see Stryker and Vryan (2006) for a clear distinction between the two as it pertains to interactionist-inspired conceptualizations
  28. ^ Stryker, Sheldon; Vryan, Kevin D. (January 2006). "The Symbolic Interactionist Frame" (PDF). Handbook of Social Psychology. pp. 3–28. doi:10.1007/0-387-36921-X_1. ISSN 1389-6903. Retrieved 2018-09-22.
  29. ^ a b c d Stryker, Sheldon (1968). "Identity Salience and Role Performance: The Relevance of Symbolic Interaction Theory for Family Research". Journal of Marriage and Family. 30 (4): 558–564. doi:10.2307/349494.
  30. ^ Stryker, Sheldon (January 1994). "Identity Theory: Its Development, Research Base, and Prospects". Studies in Symbolic Interaction. 16: 9–20 – via ResearchGate.
  31. ^ Burke, Peter J. (1980). "The Self: Measurement Requirements from an Interactionist Perspective". Social Psychology Quarterly. 43 (1): 18–29. doi:10.2307/3033745.
  32. ^ Burke, Peter J.; Reitzes, Donald C. (1981). "The Link Between Identity and Role Performance". Social Psychology Quarterly. 44 (2): 83–92. doi:10.2307/3033704.
  33. ^ Sheldon., Stryker, (1980). Symbolic interactionism : a social structural version. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co. ISBN 0805391541. OCLC 5707030.
  34. ^ Burke, Peter J. (2003). Advances in Identity Theory and Research. Owens, Timothy J., Serpe, Richard T., Thoits, Peggy A. Boston, MA: Springer US. ISBN 9781441991881. OCLC 853269009.
  35. ^ Day, Robert; Day, JoAnne V. (January 1977). "A Review of the Current State of Negotiated Order Theory: an Appreciation and a Critique". The Sociological Quarterly. 18 (1): 126–142. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1977.tb02165.x. ISSN 0038-0253.
  36. ^ a b "Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction". Archived from the original on June 7, 2007.
  37. ^ "Royal Roads University Research Portal". Archived from the original on 22 June 2007.
  38. ^ "The European Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction (EU SSSI)". www.eusssi2017.uni.lodz.pl. Retrieved 2018-09-22.


39.Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2015). Symbolic interactionism. Sociopedia. doi:10.1177/205684601561


40.Handberg, Charlotte, et al. “Revisiting Symbolic Interactionism as a Theoretical Framework Beyond the Grounded Theory Tradition.” Qualitative Health Research, vol. 25, no. 8, Aug. 2015, pp. 1023–1032, doi:10.1177/1049732314554231.

Sources[edit]

  • Blumer, Herbert. "A note on symbolic Interactionism". American Sociological Review. Vol. 38, No. 6. 1973.
  • Burbank, Patricia. "Symbolic Interactionism and critical perspective: divergent or synergistic"? Nursing Philosophy. Web. 3 Jan. 2010.
  • Prus, Robert. 1996. Symbolic Interaction and Ethnographic Research: Intersubjectivity and the Study of Human Lived Experience. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Stryker, Sheldon. "The vitalization of symbolic Interactionism". Social Psychology Quarterly. Vol. 50, pg. 83. Web. 1 Nov. 1999.

Further reading[edit]

  • Atkinson, P. A. and Housley, W. (2003) Interactionism, London, Sage.
  • Altheide. David L. (2013) "Terrorism and the national security university: public order redux" 40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Emerald.
  • Blumer, Herbert (1962). "Society as Symbolic Interaction". In Arnold M. Rose. Human Behavior and Social Process: An Interactionist Approach. Houghton-Mifflin. Reprinted in Blumer (1969).
  • Blumer, Herbert. (1971). Social Problems as Collective Behavior=2006 (translated in Japanese), Journal of Economics and Sociology
  • Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism; Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Print.
  • Brissett, Edgley. (1974) ."Life as theater". Chicago.
  • Johnson, John J. (2013), "The Contributions of the California Sociologies to the Diversity and Development of Symbolic Interaction" 40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Emerald.
  • Jeon, Yun‐Hee. (2004) "The Application of Grounded Theory and Symbolic Interactionism. "Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 249-256
  • Lehn, Dirk vom, and Will Gibson. (2011) "Interaction and Symbolic Interactionism." Symbolic Interaction. Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction. Print.
  • Liamputtong, Pranee & Ezzy, Douglas. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Milliken, P. J., and Rita Schreiber. (2012). "Examining the Nexus between Grounded Theory and Symbolic Interactionism." International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 11, no. 5, 2012, pp. 684–696   
  • Manning, Philip, and David R. Maines. (2003). "Editorial Introduction: Theory and Method in Symbolic Interactionism." Symbolic Interaction, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 497–500, ProQuest Central; Research Library; Sociological Abstracts
  • Plummer, Ken. "A World in the Making: Symbolic Interactionism in the Twentieth Century." (n.d.): n. pag. Print.
  • Plummer, Kenneth. (1975). Sexual stigma: An interactionist account. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Rock, P. (1979) The Making of Symbolic Interactionism, London, Macmillan.
  • Schneider Christopher J., and Trottier Daniel. (2013) "Social Media and the 2011 Vancouver Riot" 40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Emerald.
  • Vannini, P. (2009). Nonrepresentational theory and symbolic interactionism: Shared perspectives and missed articulations. Symbolic Interaction, 32(3), 282-286.

External links[edit]