386 MAYNARD& CLAYMANthrough internal contentiousness, however, ethnomethodological scholarshave produced a substantialbody of work over the past 25 years. In fact,ethnomethodologyhasspawnedavarietyofdistinctive subfields,and itismore accurateto say that there are several bodies of work,ratherthan asingleenterprise.Years ago, for instance, Zimmerman(1978:6) noted "the increas-ing diversity among ethnomethodologists, with respect to choice ofbothproblem and method." However, commentatorsoftenstill treatethnomethod-
ology as a unitaryperspective; in review articles and monographs,theymaypromote or critique the work of a particularethnomethodologicalschoolorsubfield. In an Annual Review article three years ago, Atkinson (1988:459)aptly remarkedthatethnomethodology"isnot ahomogenous field";hehimself, however, mainly described and critiqued justtwosubfields-therecent studies ofworkand conversation analysis.Previousreviewshave thusbeen limitedby design,whereas ourpurposeistoarticulate,to theextentpossibleinalimited space,therangeandvarietyofethnomethodologicalsubfields,toclarify distinctionsbetweenthem,andtoidentify fundamentalassumptionsthey share. We do this by showing how,inaddressing a rangeoftheoreticalandmethodological questions,differentareas of inquiry take up discrete ethnomethodologicalthemes. These includeconsideringwhetherthe propertopic
ofinvestigationisperception,cognition,talk,orembodied behavior; howtoconceptualizethe relation betweenin-teraction and social structure;and what roleethnographyshouldplayin thestudy of situated activities.
Althoughinthe preface to StudiesinEthnomethodology,Garfinkel(1967:ix)acknowledgeshisintellectual debttoTalcott Parsons(andAlfredSchutz,Aron Gurwitsch, and EdmundHusserl),theexact placementof theenterprisewith regardto general social theoryhasremainedelusiveover theyears.Thismaybewhy theory textbooksand othersecondarysourcestend topigeonholeethnomethodologyinthree characteristicsways.' First, theysee ethnometh-odology,concernedwith howpeople constructmeaning
or"definitionsof thesituation,"as aversion of symbolic interaction.Second,because definitionsofthe situationemerge from how persons announceandimpartsense-makingperceptionsandperspectivesto oneanother, ethnomethodologyissaid to beindividualistic. Third, ethnomethodologyisunderstoodtohaveemergedas acritiqueof traditionalwaysofdoing sociology.In Alexander's(1987)terms,itwas a "reaction" against functionalist sociologythatsoonassumeda"rebellious and even revolutionarythrust."
'We reviewed several theory textbooks to discern these patterns. These include Alexander(1987), Collins & Mankowski (1972), Johnson (1981), Ritzer (1983), Turner (1986), andWallace & Wolf 1980.