What makes one explanation better than another? How can we tell when an explanation has really answered our question? In a lively and readable discussion, Garfinkel argues that the key to understanding an explanation is to discover what question is really being answered. He then suggests criteria for a good explanation and goes on to examine some classic explanations in social and natural science.
I don't normally read philosophy, but this book, despite its almost maximally vanilla title, is strangely compulsive reading. It gives you a powerful way of figuring out what question is really being asked and finding hidden presuppositions. It critiques reductionism as often failing to provide answers to the questions we really want to ask and explains why higher-level ("structural") explanations are often more useful.
The book is very well-written, clear and even lively at times. Chapters 1-4, which contain the core arguments, are quite easy to follow, although familiarity with the concept of state space is important. Chapters 5 and 6 are harder and I plan to reread them in the near future.