Ken,
A short note. I am leaving for the Australian Design Awards in Sydney and will
read all these on my return. Just wanted to mention after only a look at first
couple of paragraphs. That Ken is correct the word is not about. What I should
have said perhaps is methodology is the construction of knowledge and reflects
a particular ontology.
Jan

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Friedman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2002 1:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: On methodology -- -- -- [Reply to Jan Coker]


Dear Jan,

Thank you for your notes of last week. I will offer a short response
rather than a full analysis. The subject deserves far more than I say
here.

Your earlier note to Tore seemed to distinguish between design
methods and research methods. I also thought you distinguished
between methods and methodology.

In contrast, your comment last week seems to conflate research,
teaching, learning, and practice. All of these are important and all
are related. Nevertheless, they are different one from the other.
Conflating related but distinct constructs under the same rubric
makes it difficult to discuss the subtle and important distinctions
that make each what it is.

Responding to my note on distinctions, you write, "methodology is
about knowledge and knowledge production rather than about
comparative methods."

There is a language problem in this sentence. It is true, but it is
irrelevant to the issue of distinctions between method and
methodology.

What methodology is ABOUT - its purpose or goal - is not what methodology IS.

All research is ultimately ABOUT knowledge and knowledge production.
Since research methods help us to produce knowledge, research methods
are about knowledge and knowledge production. Since methodology helps
us to understand and use research methods effectively, methodology is
about knowledge and knowledge production.

Research is a field or an activity. Research methods are tools that
enable us to do the work of the field and to undertake the activities
of the field. Methodology is the field in which we study the methods
or tools we use for research.

These issues often seem to confuse people in design research. While
people in other fields are also confused on these distinctions, the
confusion is greater in a field with young research traditions and
few well-trained research scholars in comparison with other fields.

After seeing so many confused comments on these issues in recent
conference papers and articles, I have started working on a longer
note that I intend to publish later this year. For now, I invite you
to consider the definitions (ARTFL Webster's 1913; Britannica
Webster's 2001, 2002; Bunge 1999; Mautner 1996; OED. 2002; SOED 1993;
Wordsmyth 2002.) I will post these in a follow-up note.

Good definitions permit clear constructs. Good definitions and the
constructs they support also permit us to operationalize our work. A
clear definition enables us to limit the issues we address in using
any one term.

There are problems inherent in confusing (or conflating) methods with
methodology.

Those who confuse and conflate these terms lack a term that enables
them to distinguish methods from methodology. They also lack a term
that enables them to discuss the research metanarrative in explicit
and clear terms. It is on the level of metanarrative that
methodological inquiry ABOUT method takes place.

The first problem in attempting to define methodology as "about
knowledge and knowledge production," is an immense variation from
general usage. I have never before seen this as a definition of
methodology, at least not in the published literature of research
methodology. It is always possible I have overlooked something. In
defining the term "methodology" in a way that varies with all other
definitions without reaching a new level of clarity makes it
difficult to communicate using the same term.

It is rather like asking for a steak when you a beer. Someone is
going to be unhappy with the result. If you ask for a steak at a bar
where they do not serve food, the bartender will probably help you
get it sorted out. If you ask in a restaurant, you are going to get a
plate full of meat. Your waiter will be very surprised if you
complain when you asked for a "steak" by the term that everyone else
uses for meat.

If we agree that research is a community enterprise, we cannot use
terms as though we each speak a private language.

The second problem in attempting to define methodology as "about
knowledge and knowledge production," is an inability to
operationalize the term.

The third problem in attempting to define methodology as "about
knowledge and knowledge production," is the lack of a term for
comparative inquiry into methods.

If you define methodology as "about knowledge and knowledge
production," you deprive yourself of the ability to explicitly and
clearly discuss the research metanarrative in which methodological
inquiry ABOUT METHOD takes place.

The term methodology is widely used and well understood. The broad
definitions that are widely used permit us operational traction. The
construct allows us access to the research metanarrative. As Terry
Love pointed out in an earlier note, there are interesting and
delicate issues involved at the interface between methods, methodics,
and methodology. This range of issues requires a greater range of
distinctions than we commonly use, not fewer. This is a different
challenge than the problem of conflated terms or uncommon definitions.

Rather than focus on what the definition is NOT, I want to consider
the important issue of what methodology IS in terms of the
metanarrative of research.

Any research report or research thesis requires at least nine
distinct elements. There are actually more distinctions, and these
nine elements can be further articulated. This is particular the case
for item 8. The elements of an explicit contribution to knowledge
involve a huge range of steps.

The nine elements permit us to examine the major areas of
metanarrative in which one must distinguish between methods and
methodology:

These nine elements are:

1. Stating the research problem,
2. Discussing knowledge in the field to date,
3. Discussing past attempts to examine or solve the problem,
4. Discussing methods and approach,
5. Comparing possible alterative methods,
6. Discussing problems encountered in the research,
7. Explaining how the researcher addresses those problems,
8. Explicitly contributing to the body of knowledge within the field,
9. Stating implications for future research.

Unless you can explicitly distinguish methodology from methods, you
cannot adequately address six key steps from item 2 through item 7.
You must be able to engage in the comparative discussion of methods
to: discuss knowledge in the field to date, discuss past attempts to
examine or solve a problem, discuss methods and approach, compare
possible alterative methods, discuss problems encountered in the
research, and explain how the you addressed those problems.

It is not always necessary to discuss methodology in all six steps of
every research report, but it may be. We must be able to do so. This
requires a useful construct and a definition of methodology that we
can operationalize. Without it, we lack the tools.

When we discuss METHOD, we state what we did.

When we discuss METHODOLOGY, we use a metanarrative that places what
we did in the full research context.

This enables us to explain choices, reasons, and results. This
requires more than saying, "this is what I did, and this is what
happened physically when I did it."

A method is a way of doing something.

Methodology is the comparative study of method. Methodology allows us
to compare ways of doing the same thing. It permits us to compare and
contrast ways of doing related or different things. It allows us to
examine choices, issues, and outcomes. It permits us to adapt methods
and techniques to new purposes. It permits us to adapt partially
useful aspects of otherwise inappropriate methods. Methodology
permits us to consider and inspect a wide range of uses involving the
many aspects of HOW we engage in research.

Research methods are the tools we use to solve research problems.
Methodology involves research and applications involving the tools we
use to solve research problems. Because this is such an important
area of research, methodology is a field of study in its own right as
distinct from the specific methods of any given field or application.

One reason that people sometimes confuse methods with methodology is
that they confuse content of this general field with the objects of
inquiry examined by the research methods of any specific field.

This confusion is one reason why it is inappropriate to grant a PhD
to scholars or scientists who have learned only one method without
studying methodology and the comparative analysis of method.

An advanced practitioner who learns the skillful use of a specific
research method or methods in solving practical problems should
receive a professional doctorate.

A physician learns to apply specific methods to in diagnosis. In many
nations, that person receives the MD degree. In other nations, there
is a special bachelor's degree in medicine or a physician's license.
The person who masters these methods of clinical diagnostics research
is a doctor of medicine or a physician. A physician is an advanced
practitioner of the medical arts and an advanced practitioner of
applied science in medicine.

In contrast, a specialist in medical research learns about research
methods and then learns to apply these to medicine. The degree
awarded for this kind of education is a PhD in one of the fields of
medical research. A medical research scholar is trained in general
research methods and trained to apply these methods to a field. He or
she is an advanced practitioner of the research arts rather than the
medical arts. As an advanced RESEARCH practitioner, the researcher is
able to apply scientific methods to the study of medical research.

Mautner (1996: 267) defines methodology as "1. The discipline which
investigates and evaluates methods of inquiry, of validation, of
teaching, etc. 2. a theory within that discipline. Note that
methodology is about method and not the same as method."

Bunge (1999: 178) distinguishes between method, as "a regular and
well-specified procedure for doing something: an ordered sequence of
goal-directed operations" and methodology as "the study of methods.
The normative branch of epistemology; a knowledge technology. Often
confused with method, as in "the methodology used in the present
research."

If you have better definitions than these, I would welcome them.

A definition states what something is. My earlier note offered a
definition. Your response was not a definition, but a statement of
purpose.

This is inadequate as a definition for two reasons.

First, it states attributes of purpose that methodology shares in
common with thousands of other knowledge-related constructs.

You stated what methodology is about. Methodology shares the quality
of being "about knowledge and knowledge production" with many other
constructs and phenomena.

A definition permits us to discuss distinctions along with
commonalities. To say that methodology is "about knowledge and
knowledge production" offers a statement of common purposes without
distinction.

Second, it is impossible to operationalize this attempted definition
is not. To say that methodology is "about knowledge and knowledge
production" does not tell us what methodology is or how to use it.

A statement that defines methodology as "1. The discipline which
investigates and evaluates methods of inquiry, of validation, of
teaching, etc." (Mautner 1996: 267) tells us that to use methodology,
we must investigate and evaluate methods. This is done comparing
methods and by examining methods as objects of inquiry. Examining
methods as objects of inquiry is very different than examining the
research questions for which we intend to use those methods.

In your next post, you stated "Also, in my humble opinion, those most
critical things which Ken mentions 'analysis, logic, and rhetoric'
need to also include what Kepes refered to as the education of
vision, or visual analysis, logic and understanding, and what
Chodorow refered to as pre-language knowledge carried in fantasy and
emotion."

I agree with you on this.

In agreeing, I will offer distinctions.

My post concerned research methods and methodology. The abilities you
praise here are not research methods. They are important abilities in
any researcher, but they are a different class of construct than
research methods. They are also a different class of construct than
the issues we discuss when we consider methodology.

It is also vital to recognize how and where certain kinds of learning
take place. Most pre-language learning takes place before the age of
five. Most pre-language knowledge is rooted in an individual by that
age. At university, we can work with qualities of imagination,
fantasy, and emotion, but these are not our central focus.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. In effect, you are saying,
"Ken has overlooked apples," when I was not discussing apples at all.

I like apples. Discussing oranges has nothing to do with my view on apples.

I agree that the education of vision is important, along with
fantasy, imagination, and emotion.

Since I was discussing research methods and methodology, I did not
overlook these issues, unless you also want to say that I also
overlooked hundreds of good things that are not directly connected
with research methods and methodology. Many things make us better and
more imaginative human beings, and therefore better researchers.

However, rhetoric does incorporate some of the issues you consider.
Rhetoric involves the study of communication. It is also an approach
to the study of how we develop ideas. Rhetoric therefore involves
vision and understanding. Rhetoric also involves the emotions, though
it obviously does not work them at the stage of pre-language
knowledge.

A central aspect of research involves communicating explicit
information. Research communication always involves language
communication of some kind, though the language of research
communication may take place in natural language or in numbers or
other explicit denotative symbolic systems.

As you wrote in your note to David Durling, there are many ways of
knowing, and many ways to express what we know. All of these are
valid and all have a place.

In pointing to distinctions between methods and methodology, I am
explicitly discussing only one series of distinctions in one field of
knowledge production.

Dance, art, cooking, gardening, surgery, poetry, drama all involve
different kinds of knowledge and different ways of knowing. Some -
but not all - involve research.

I like to cook. I learn a lot by watching dogs and carrying on
conversations with them. I find both of these to be dramatically
educational and informative, and both increase my stock of knowledge.
I assert that working with food and talking with dogs makes me a
better scholar and scientist. I do not assert either of these as a
research method, nor do I feel that these imply issues in
methodological awareness that can be transferred to the study of
methodology. (I do feel that cooking and canine conversation have
applications in learning theory and pedagogy, but that is another
issue than research methodology.)

Designers require a deeper understanding of general research methods
than they once did. All research scholars require this, and in this,
design research is similar to all research fields.

Designers and design researchers need methodological clarity to
understand, compare, and consider information arising from different
kinds of research. They must be able to know when research results
are meaningful or meaningless, useful or problematic. Sometimes, they
may need to know how to undertake or participate in planning
different kinds of research to get the information they need for the
next step in the design process.

All of this requires a level of methodological awareness beyond
design methodology, and beyond design research methodology. It
requires an ability to understand and evaluate, and occasionally to
engage in, other kinds of research. In this, designers resemble
advanced professionals and technologists in most fields today.

The ability to understand, analyze, and evaluate research transcends
the immediate limits of any applied field. It also requires clear
definitions and valid constructs.

Best regards,

Ken Friedman


References

ARTFL Webster's. 1913. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (G &
C. Merriam Co., 1913, edited by Noah Porter). ARTFL (Project for
American and French Research on the Treasury of the French Language).
Chicago: Divisions of the Humanities, University of Chicago. URL:
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/webster.form.html. Date
accessed: 2002 January 18.

Britannica Webster's. 2001. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Online edition. Chicago:
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. URL: http://www.britannica.com/. Date
accessed: 2002 March 7.

Britannica Webster's. 2002. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Online edition. Chicago:
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. URL: http://www.britannica.com/. Date
accessed: 2002 January 21.

Bunge, Mario. 1999. The Dictionary of Philosophy. Amherst, New York:
Prometheus Books.

Mautner, Thomas. 1996. A dictionary of philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.

OED. 2002. OED Online. Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. J. A. Simpson
and E. S. C. Weiner. 2nd ed, 1989. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Oxford
University Press. URL: http://dictionary.oed.com/ Date accessed: 2002
January 18.

SOED. 1993. The new shorter Oxford English dictionary. Edited by
Lesley Brown. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.

Wordsmyth. 2001. The Wordsmyth Educational Dictionary-Thesaurus.
[WEDT]. Robert Parks, ed. Chicago: Wordsmyth Collaboratory. URL:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/. Date accessed: 2001 February 2.

Wordsmyth. 2002. The Wordsmyth Educational Dictionary-Thesaurus.
[WEDT]. Robert Parks, ed. Chicago: Wordsmyth Collaboratory. URL:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/. Date accessed: 2002 February 2.


--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University