Abstract
This paper attempts to examine Garfinkel's argument about ethnomethodological policies and methods in order to understand the claim of EM studies on their achivement. Distinctive emphases on the production and accountability of phenomena of order in and as immortal ordinary society (that sociological studies address) identify EM studies in contrast to classic (=formal analytic) studies as an incommensurably alternate sociology. Thus a comparison of EM policies and methods with those of classic studies reveals EM's distinctive policies and methods. Then it will be understood that there are good reasons for EM studies to respecify topics of order as locally produced and naturally, reflexively accountable (radical) phenom-ena of order ; the respecified phenomena of order possess two inconmmensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies for the production of order in and as of practical action's and practical reasoning's embodied details. On the understanding that EM studies of radical phenomena of order find the in vivo work of producing the naturally accountable phenomena of order of these two technologies, some consideration will be given to what contribution EM studies make to sociological studies.
