 Despite his influence , according to Fine and Manning there are " remarkably few scholars who are continuing his work " , nor has there been a " Goffman school " ; thus , his impact on social theory has been simultaneously " great and modest " . Fine and Manning attribute the lack of subsequent Goffman @-@ style research and writing to the nature of his signature style , which they consider very difficult to duplicate ( even " mimic @-@ proof " ) , and also to his writing style and subjects not being widely valued in the social sciences . With regard to his style , Fine and Manning remark that he tends to be seen either as a scholar whose style is difficult to reproduce , and therefore daunting to those who might wish to emulate his style , or as a scholar whose work was transitional , bridging the work of the Chicago school and that of contemporary sociologists , and thus of less interest to sociologists than the classics of either of those two groups . With regard to his subjects , Fine and Manning observe that the topic of behavior in public places is often stigmatized as being trivial , and thus unworthy of serious scholarly attention . 
 Despite his influence , according to Fine and Manning <a href='dey_it' title='1'><mark>there</mark></a> are " remarkably few scholars <a href='null_relcl' title='2'><mark>who</mark></a>are continuing his work " , nor <a href='uninflect' title='3'><mark>has</mark></a> <a href='dey_it' title='4'><mark>there</mark></a> been a " Goffman school " ; thus , his impact on social theory <a href='uninflect' title='5'><mark>has</mark></a> been simultaneously " great and modest " . Fine and Manning attribute the lack of subsequent Goffman @-@ style research and writing to the nature of his signature style , which they consider very difficult to duplicate ( even " mimic @-@ proof " ) , and also to his writing style and subjects not being widely valued in the social sciences . With regard to his style , Fine and Manning remark that he <a href='uninflect' title='6'><mark>tends</mark></a> to be seen either as a scholar whose style <a href='drop_aux' title='7'><mark>is</mark></a>difficult to reproduce , and therefore daunting to those <a href='null_relcl' title='8'><mark>who</mark></a>might wish to emulate his style , or as a scholar whose work was transitional , bridging the work of the Chicago school and that of contemporary sociologists , and thus of less interest to sociologists than the classics of either of those two groups . With regard to his subjects , Fine and Manning observe that the topic of behavior in public places is often stigmatized as being trivial , and thus unworthy of serious scholarly attention . 
Despite his influence , according to Fine and Manning it is " remarkably few scholars r continuing his work " , nor have it been a " Goffman skoo " ; thus , his impact on social theory have been simultaneously " great and modest " . Fine and Manning attribute the lack of subsequent Goffman @-@ style research and writing to da nature of his signature style , which they consider very difficult to duplicate ( even " mimic @-@ proof " ) , and also to his writing style and subjects not being widely valued in the social sciences . With regard to his style , Fine and Manning remark that he tend to be seen either as a scholar whose style difficult to reproduce , and therefore daunting to those might wish to emulate his style , or as a scholar whose wrk was transitional , bridging the wwrkof the Chicago school and that of contemporary sociologists , and thus of less interest to sociologists than tdaclassics of either of those two groups . With regard to his subjects , Fine and Manning observe that thdaopic of behavior in public places is often stigmatized as being trivial , and thus unworthy of serious scholarly attention .