The whole 'methodology' thing seems to be a bit of a grey area to many students. For instance, it became apparent to me at least that many people get methodology and method confused, insofar as to say that they think that the method is the methodology. Methodology is in fact the theoretical lens or framework through which the research is designed and conducted, while the method is the technique used to gather and analyse data. Bit of a difference there!
But wait, there's more! The methodology is in fact comprised of the standpoint, theoretical framework and the method. The latter two are easily sorted, and I needn't worry about them here. The standpoint however, is problematic - at least for someone like me, who is for the first time, expressing it.
I have a research methods textbook written by Walter (2011), and in it she writes:
"Our standpoint is the most important aspect in defining our methodology, because it influences all other components. But it is also an aspect that in most social research is poorly addressed. Our standpoint is basically our own position, who we are and how we see ourselves in relation to others and in relation to society...How we see the world is not a neutral, objective understanding, but is inevitably influenced by the filters and frames of our life experiences and circumstances and our social, cultural economic and personal identity location." (Walter 2011: 13).
But wait, it gets more involved - Walter argues that the standpoint is broken down into three parts, epistemology; axiology and ontology. These are the theory of knowledge, ways of knowing; the theory of values; and and the theories of the nature of being - what constitutes reality.
What does this mean? It's pretty heavy stuff is what it means. I have about 2-3 weeks to come to grips with it. It seems like it can't be as easy as saying "this is me, this is what shapes my worldview, this is how those factors will influence the way I view the research". I'd be interested in getting some feedback from people that have (hypothetically) covered this stuff.
Til next week...
References
Walter M 2011, 'The Nature of Social Science Research' in M Walter (ed.), Social Research Methods, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, pp. 13-30.
Hi Matt
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting way to view the distinction between methodology and methods is that one does not have to be a methodologist to use a method, but one generally is if s/he makes as their focus the efficacy of methods rather than the subject matter to which methods may apply.
What may help in your methodology is (irrespective of the formal categories of 'ontology and epistemology' which tend to freak people out), if you think of the underlying assumptions governing your particular data types and methods of data collection. For example, in using qualities, this would imply about both the subject of analysis and ways of knowing the world that... Similarly, in using quantities, this would imply about the subject of analysis and ways of knowing the world that... Then, based on your own critical analysis of what it means to use these different data types, you may more easily (and without preconceptions?) then go about inserting labels, reconfiguring your understanding of the method with other people's understanding and this rightly transforms your selection of method into a methodology because you're explicitly discussing the uses/limitations and efficacy of your chosen method for the select problem.
I hope this helps?
Peter Lalli