methodology isn’t methods.. or… what goes in a methods chapter

Since I’ve been posting about methods and methodology, I’ve been asked several times to discuss the difference between methodology and methods and how these appear in a methods chapter. This post is by way of an answer.

Not all dissertations have a methods chapter. Although much of the how-to-write-it material (including my own) suggests that there is a distinct chapter called methods, some disciplines and many research projects don’t have one per se.

However, most (but not all) arts, humanities and social science theses do have to include, somewhere in the first few chapters, something about the way that the researcher has approached the task of researching, how they think about themselves as a researcher, and how they have designed the actual piece of research that they are doing, and why it is the way that it is. (In the textbooks these things are usually called epistemology, methodology, and methods.)

Discussions of epistemology and methodology generally go together.

Sometimes, there is no need to go into a great deal of detail about epistemology. It will be sufficient to say something like … this research has been conducted from a critical perspective, that is, I understand that … and then the writer goes on to offer some basic principles which underpin a critical research tradition. (Or interpretive, or social constructivist – whatever… )

Sometimes this discussion can be quite lengthy. It’s not at all uncommon for historians for example to devote a whole chapter to discussions of what counts as historical knowledge, where they stand in relation to a series of key debates and how they have approached their research. It’s also not at all uncommon for ethnographers to write a very extended piece about how they are approaching their research. For anthropologists and others working in the ethnographic tradition, understanding that knowledge is a social construction has an enormous set of implications – about the role of the researcher, the way that access is obtained and the relationships that are set up with research participants, the way in which the researcher wrestles with who they are … and more. A well-handled ethnographic discussion will blend together questions of epistemology and methodology quite seamlessly. And I would always expect to see somebody who claimed a feminist position to not only argue that knowledge is socially constructed, and in particular gendered interests, but also to be very specific about which feminism[s] they actually work with and against. This would clearly require quite an extended discussion since they also need to spell out the implications for their research.

Writing about methodology is always about fitting the discussion to the discipline and the topic – it’s writing about what is most important for the reader to understand in order to appreciate/comprehend the research that is about to be reported.

So, after all that, what do I mean by methodology?

Well I understand methodology to be theory; it’s theory about the research methods that will be used. It’s theory which underpins the decisions made about the researcher’s range of choices of – for example – what to study; who to study; where to study; which research tradition to work within; what knowledges to draw on; what to include and exclude, foreground and background and the consequences of this decision; what counts as data and why; relational and ethical concerns; and how to represent the findings/how to write the research.

And I see methods as the ‘tools’ that are used to do the research.

Finally, a research design is the way that the researcher assembles and sequences the tools, and the ways in which these are applied, according to the principles elaborated through the methodological choices.

As an examiner I would therefore always expect to see a methods chapter, if it is presented as such, to cover:
(1) a brief restatement of the research question
(2) a methodological discussion, including discussion of epistemology and ontology as relevant
(3) the research design, including a discussion of methods with due recognition of their blank and blind spots.

I also expect to see
(4) a clear audit trail of what the researcher has actually done, with whom, when and where, how much data was produced and how it connects to the research question(s), how the data was analysed, and a pointer to any particular problems/issues that arose.

About these ads

About pat thomson

Pat Thomson is Professor of Education in the School of Education, The University of Nottingham, UK
This entry was posted in epistemology, methodology, methods chapter, ontology, research design, research methods, thesis and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to methodology isn’t methods.. or… what goes in a methods chapter

  1. A wonderfully clear explanation of methodology, method, and design.

  2. Natéwindé Sawadogo says:

    Thanks Patter,
    have been following you for some time and I really find your posts interesting.
    with regard to the present topic, simply put then methodology includes methods -but the reverse is not true.
    French social scientists have more words than their english counterparts when talking about this topic
    Methodologie>Methodology
    Techniques> Methods
    Outils> When French talk about ‘tools’ when english talk about methods[like you put it here], they are referring to -for example -‘interview guide’ BUT NOT THE TECHNIQUE OF INTERVIEW, questionnaire’ BUT NOT THE SURVEY etc…..in french language method is till at a general level, although below methodology. it is tools which are the most detailled level.

  3. Margaret says:

    Great post! I just passed this along to some of my M.A. students.

  4. Elizabeth Hartnell-Young says:

    Thaks! You have addressed one of my biggest bugbears in research tenders (I’m sure you would know what mean) in this really helpful post.

  5. nickhopwood says:

    Reblogged this on Nick Hopwood and commented:
    This is a very nice piece getting to grips with what is often a key difficulty in thesis writing. Thanks, Pat!

  6. M-H says:

    Quite a lot of people use the word ‘methodology’ as if it meant the sum of your methods, or the effect of them used together. I’ve noticed this in economics, for instance. and management literature. I suppose if you’re not concerned with questions of standpoint and asking ‘how do I know this?’ it’s hard to write the kind of methodology you’re talking about.

  7. Pingback: methodology isn't methods.. or... what goes in a methods chapter | PhD Research Beginners | Scoop.it

  8. Pingback: methodology isn't methods.. or... what goes in ...

  9. Pingback: happy birthday to patter… a reflection on the last two years | patter

  10. Pingback: Dissertation101methodology isn't methods.. or... what goes in a methods chapter » Dissertation101

  11. Ahmad Salih says:

    Reblogged this on The Practice of Strategy and commented:
    A nice piece by Pat Thomson on the difference between methodology and methods.

  12. Pingback: Methodologies again | Creative Writer PhD

  13. Pingback: patter’s 2013 top ten | patter

  14. Pingback: how long will my viva be? | patter

  15. Pingback: Writing tips: my favourite recent bookmarks | Joanne Hill

  16. Pingback: Writing up a PhD – The final straight? | The Digital Doctorate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s