« Texts in composition history | Main | Academic ethics »

December 26, 2004

"Methods" and "methodologies"

Because these two terms are used so variously (sometimes even as synonyms), I propose that we ground our discussions in the distinction offered by Sandra Harding in “Is There a Feminist Method?” Feminism and Methodology. Ed. Sandra Harding. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1987. 1-15.

Inquiry into research, Harding says, is complicated by the frequent use of method to refer to method, methodology, and epistemology.


One reason it is difficult to find a satisfactory answer to questions about a distinctive feminist method is that discussion of method (techniques for gathering evidence) and methodology (a theory and analysis of how research should proceed) have been intertwined with each other and with epistemological issues (issues about an adequate theory of knowledge or justificatory strategy) in both the traditional and feminist discourses.

As for method, Harding says that feminist researchers avail themselves of all three possibilities: listening, observing, and examining historical records. Their contribution is that they listen carefully to women's accounts of themselves, they examine social scientists' accounts of women, and they search for "newly recognized patterns in historical data." To restrict an account of feminists' contributions to the social sciences to an account of feminist methods, however, would severely minimize those contributions. But couching feminist contributions in a larger setting is problematized by social scientists' tendency to discuss methodology in terms of methods. Philosophers do the same when they ground methodological discussions in the arena of "scientific method" (2).

Objections? Alternatives? Questions?

Posted by senioritis at December 26, 2004 08:12 AM

Comments

If I read this right, research method might be considered a subset or dependent area in relation to a methodology; and neither the results of the method nor the validity of the methodology can really be established except in light of an epistemology that evaluates results (in re method) and analysis (in re methodology). Does that mean the person or group that establishes the epistemology controls judgment of both method and methodology?

I suppose another way of saying this is "the person with the most pervasively accepted world view wins". Or you could substitute "rhetoric"
for "world view" - the person with the strongest rhetorical stance wins?

Does Harding discuss feminist methodology or feminist epistemology?

Posted by: Carolyn Ostrander at January 7, 2005 08:09 PM

As I read this, I think of my method of reading: one word at a time, skipping back to reread bits that get tangled or wind up making that attractive question mark across my face.

The methodology, then, might consist of a variety of theoretical practices related to how I read. Maybe, one could argue, I shouldn't skip back mid-way through a sentence but should finish reading the whole sentence and then return to the beginning of that sentence if it is still unclear.

The epistemology would be how we know (or why we believe) that one methodology will be more helpful to my understanding than others.

I've probably just reduced this beyond all comprehension and usefulness, but for me it seems that methods are applied, methodologies are theorized, and epistemologies are on the level of "world-view" (or the ways we validate the selection of methodologies that we apply as methods). I tend to see things in layers like this a lot.

Posted by: TR at January 19, 2005 06:48 PM

[this is the introduction to the paper i wrote at the end of margaret's class wherein we were supposed to summarize/define/do SOMETHING with the "what in the world is methodology anyway" question.

"Methodology is (at least according to the American Heritage Dictionary):
a. A body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry; a set of working methods: the methodology of genetic studies; a poll marred by faulty methodology.
b. The study or theoretical analysis of such working methods.


The Free Online Dictionary of Computing adds adorably, if incorrectly: "2. A pretentious way of saying ' method'."


The methods in the above-mentioned "set," however, are defined, specified, limited, outlined, required, and made absolute nowhere in any definition of "methodology" or any classroom discussion on the topic. It's an open set, not a closed one, to draw on mathematical terminology. And it's a hidden set. Even the most conscientious researcher/reporter will not be able to spell out every method that he or she put to use during the course of a project."

Posted by: tyratae at January 20, 2005 11:51 AM