This volume is a collection of studies inspired by an ethnomethodological approach to legal phenomena. The name “ethnomethodology”—literally meaning “native” or “folk” methodology—was coined by Harold Garfinkel (1917–2011) in the 1960s. The name derived in part from anthropological “ethno” studies, such as ethnobotany, ethnomathematics, and ethnomusicology, although the substantive approach Garfinkel developed drew more strongly from existential phenomenology. Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology delved into the vast array of practices (“methods”) that are produced in the societies that sociologists study—practices and interactional routines that assemble and organize gatherings of persons, make up everyday routines, and organize formal institutional affairs (Garfinkel 1967). Unlike ethnostudies in particular domains, ethnomethodology offered a comprehensive view of social order as a “methodic achievement” produced in many different circumstances through the activities of a society’s members. Accordingly, scientific and other professional methods take their place in the society alongside “folk” and “common-sense” methods, and they also depend heavily upon embodied and discursive practices that are rarely featured in formal education. Ethnomethodological studies do not treat scientific methods as a model of rational conduct with which to take stock of “folk” or “common-sense” methods. One reason for this is that day-to-day professional activities make heavy use of commonplace language and routines, and such activities invariably involve contributions from persons with different degrees and kinds of competency. Even when an environment of activities is explicitly dedicated to the production of legally or scientifically justifiable outcomes, the various contributions to such outcomes do not adhere to a single overarching scheme of rationality.