Dear Teena and Gavin,
Thanks for these notes.
While the three-part vocabulary I use comes from philosopher and physicist
Mario Bunge, it is equally useful in the social sciences, as well as in the
other fields.
Methods are how to do things.
Methodology is the comparative study of method.
Methodics is the aggregate body of methods in a field.
The way you have both described methodology is correct and useful, but it
isn't comprehensive. Gavin's post made me a little uncomfortable, in the
sense that one can misread it to confuse arrays of methods -- quantitative,
qualitative, or mixed methods -- with methodology. One may have a
methodological commitment to the value of quantitative methods or the need
for mixed methods in a certain field, and this methodological commitment may
emerge from the comparative study of method, but it is not itself the
comparative study of method.
So, too, I'd propose that methodology includes an understanding of the logic
and thinking behind a methodological choice. This gives us a rationale for
choosing methods. Methodology includes much more than this, however.
Many of us study methodology to learn about methods that we will never use.
We even study methods that do not interest us when we find we need to learn
something about them to help our students or colleagues.
The methodology chapter in a PhD thesis is not simply called the methodology
chapter because it is where the author explains his or her choices and
commitments. It is called the methodology chapter because, at its best, it
is where we examine plausible methods we did not use to explain why we did
not use them, and it is where an outstanding thesis will examine the
methodological consequences of the choices for and against each of those
methods.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean
Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
--
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:43:20 +1100, teena clerke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>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.
[Responding to Gavin Melles]
>>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.
|