Ethnomethodology and phenomenology represent significant critiques of positivism within sociology, challenging its foundational assumptions about objectivity, social facts, and the nature of social reality. Positivism, championed by Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim, asserts that society can be studied using the same scientific methods as natural sciences, focusing on observable, measurable social facts and seeking universal laws.

Phenomenology, as applied to sociology (e.g., by Alfred Schutz), argues that social reality is not an objective, external entity but is intersubjectively constructed through individuals' lived experiences and interpretations. It emphasizes the 'lifeworld' (Lebenswelt) – the taken-for-granted world of everyday life – and how individuals make sense of their experiences. From a phenomenological perspective, positivism fails to grasp the subjective meanings and intentions that underpin human action. It critiques positivism for imposing external categories and theories onto social phenomena, thereby missing the rich, complex, and context-dependent ways in which individuals construct and experience their social world. For phenomenologists, understanding society requires delving into the subjective consciousness of actors, rather than merely observing their external behavior.

Ethnomethodology, developed by Harold Garfinkel, builds upon phenomenological insights. It focuses on the 'methods' (ethno-methods) that ordinary people use to make sense of their social world and to produce social order. Garfinkel argued that social order is not a pre-existing structure (as positivists might suggest) but is continuously accomplished and maintained through ongoing, practical, and often unconscious activities of individuals. Ethnomethodology critiques positivism for treating social facts as external and coercive, rather than as products of members' interpretive work. It highlights the 'indexicality' of social meaning (meaning is always context-dependent) and the 'reflexivity' of social action (actions simultaneously constitute and are constituted by social reality). For example, ethnomethodologists would argue that 'deviance' is not an objective category but is produced through the interpretive practices of those who label certain behaviors as deviant. By focusing on how people create and maintain a sense of order and meaning in their everyday interactions, ethnomethodology reveals the fragility and constructed nature of social reality, directly challenging positivism's quest for objective, universal social laws.