Search

The article presents the authors' comments on a paper by Housley and Fitzgerald about discursive psychology (DP). In order to understand the intellectual place of DP, the authors suggest taking the kinds of fragmentary focus on psychological matters found in the work of Harvey Sacks. The authors present their response to the paper's claim that DP suffers from theoretical amnesia with respect to the analysis of accounts and motives and that that amnesia is confronted by re-emphasizing the sociological canon of interactionism, phenomenology and ethnomethodology. They say that the problem with the paper is that it is organized around disciplinary allegiance and sacred texts rather than around the specific arguments and analytic developments.