This presentation involves ‘going back to basics’ to appreciate what is distinctive about a Critical Realist methodology, in relation to ‘describing’, ‘explaining’ and ‘evaluating’ the social order or parts of it. It works through the roles that (i) its ‘social ontology’,(ii) an adequate ‘explanatory framework’, and (iii) ‘practical investigations’ play in compatible methods. Firstly, all social theories have a social ontology, implicitly or explicitly, this serves a role of conceptual regulation, not explanation itself, governing those concepts deemed admissible and inadmissible (not ghosts or witchcraft today), thus affecting description but not providing explanation. Secondly, in social theorizing it is necessary for all three forms of conflation (upwards, downwards and central) to be rejected because fundamental entities – ‘structure’. ‘culture’ and ‘agency’ are different kinds of emergent entities with different properties and powers, despite being interrelated in one another’s formation, continuation and development. Adequate explanations necessarily come in a SAC (entailing Structure because all social relations are context-dependent; Culture because Agents must have some idea of what they are doing; Agency because there is no Morphogenesis or Morphostasis without their doings). Finally, ‘practical investigation’ of a research question is the only element, providing it meets (i) and (ii), that enables practitioners of CR to engage in worthwhile social evaluation.