When Harold Garfinkel coined the word ethnomethodology, he drew an analogy with the ‘ethnosciences’ in social anthropology (studies of native language and practice that are likened to, and often compared with, the disciplines of botany, mathematics, musicology, etc.). However, unlike other ethnosciences, ethnomethodology is not focused on a specific subject area, but on ways of doing things and conceptions of doing those things in every imaginable walk of life. In other words, ethnomethodology is the study of practical actions and practical reasoning, and thus far more comprehensive in its scope than any study of ‘lay’ or ‘native’ variants and analogs of modern disciplines. It aims for rigor and systematicity, but it does not use modern scientific (or other academic) understandings of the world as a normative or comparative basis for identifying distinctive properties of untutored, everyday practices and understandings. When ethnomethodologists turn attention to work credited with scientific standing, they do not perform an underlaborer’s task, but instead aim to examine the routine research practices conducted with materials in real time settings of conduct (Garfinkel, 2002, Ch. 9; Garfinkel et al. 1981; Lynch, 1993).