Hi all,
I agree with Gavin's explication of the disciplinary fluidity of
research terminology. I now teach an undergraduate subject called
Research and Inquiry in the field of Adult Education. A key
discussion point is the difference between 'method' and 'methodology'
and why it's important to make the distinction. As Gavin explains, a
simple way of thinking about this is that 'methodology', based on a
particular epistemological and philosophical position, is the
logic/thinking behind, or rationale for, the choice and use of
'method/s'. The latter are selected/devised because they are the best
way/s to produce data that addresses the research question/s from the
researcher's epistemological perspective. In my PhD research, I am
using a method generally not used in educational or design research,
and also developing a new method, because they allow me to do what I
want to do in ways that existing methods don't. Thus my imperative is
epistemologically driven. If anyone is interested to understand how
this is so, please see my article to be published in early 2009.
cheers, teena
Clerke, T. (forthcoming), Ghostwriting and shadowwriting:
constructing research texts that speak to women's lived experience,
in 'Crossroads', University of Queensland online journal,
www.uq.edu.au/crossroads
>Hi Chris, Ken and others
>
>These are important questions and one discipline which can be
>helpful is to maintain the distinction between methods (i.e.
>interview) and methodology (qualitative, quantitative, mixed
>methods). While many technical and empirical sciences, e.g. medicine
>and engineering, use both terms synonymously this is because a
>tradition and convergence on ways of doing things leaves no doubt as
>to the overall epistemological and ontological commitments of such
>fields - in short, such fields (I speak from working with an
>engineering faculty for two years and medicine for three years) talk
>of research designs, methods, methodology, relatively
>indiscriminately. In the social sciences (I'll include my own fields
>of anthropology, education, but not linguistics), there is a real
>need to rationalize, i.e. make explicit the methodological
>commitments one has, which themselves serve as a logic or rationale
>for methods one uses. Method Invention, in the sense of coming up
>with new ways of gathering data or more generally accessing the
>world, is a relatively unconstrained enterprise, i.e. we need put no
>limits on it, so even cultural probes, visualisation strategies,
>etc., will be acceptable in as much as there is some coherence with
>the epistemological and ontological commitments that inform our
>methodological affiliations as researchers. For example, I have made
>the case in two recent articles (Design Issues
>http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/desi.2008.24.4.88
>and Artifact
>http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a906181402~db=all~order=page;
>I also alluded to the value of pragmatism in a previous life of
>applied linguistics http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/4/3/283
>and for qualitative methodology
>http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=126256420458728;res=E-LIBRARY)
>that pragmatism - properly understood - provides such a
>methodological rationale for mixed methods in design research. Hope
>this contributes
>
>Dr Gavin Melles
>Research Fellow, Faculty of Design
>Swinburne University of Technology
>Office: 613 92146851
>Skype: gavin.melles
>Member of Australian French Association for Science & Technology (AFAS)
>Associate Fellow, Communications Research Institute (CRI)
>http://www.communication.org.au/
>Regional Council Member (2008-2011) for Adult, Community and Further
>Education AFCE), Victoria
|