Ethnomethodologists refer to the reasoning and description that occurs in daily interaction as “ad-hocing.” There can be no fixed standards for determining what other people intend or are talking about since words used in everyday discourse are not subject to strict definition.
Ad hocing or improvising one’s identity implies creating an identity that, while not violating one’s sense of “Self,” also improves one’s feeling of fit within a particular situation.
There is no unique ideal way to describe someone you met at a party; therefore, individuals often use a variety of descriptions. Instead, when additional individuals assert that they can recognize the description, it is assumed to be accurate. Similar to how all descriptions are supposed to be ad hoc, their suitability can e determined only in terms of application.
Ad hoc or improvising one’s life denotes creating an identity that, while not violating one’s sense of “Self,” still strengthens one’s feeling of fit in a particular situation.
The range to which humans may control these implicit interactional programs for personal gain is a crucial issue for ethnomethodology, social science, artificial intelligence, society, and Goffman. According to Douglas Hofstadter, human creativity is the ability to create new variations on existing themes, in this case, interactional themes. Garfinkel refers to this inventiveness as “ad hocing,” and he regards it as a crucial interactional resource.
In Harold Garfinkel’s description of the conversation, it is a process of “ad-hocing,” where one can never be sure of what is conceivable until after the other person has actually spoken it.