Methodology, Who Needs It?

1. Martyn Hammersley The Open University University of Chester July 2013 Methodology, Who Needs It?

2. Ambivalence about methodology • Over the past few decades it has come to be insisted, notably by ESRC, that all new researchers be ‘trained’ in method. It is also argued that the methods expertise of experienced researchers needs recurrently upgrading. • This commitment to the centrality of methodology has been shared by some researchers, but there has also long been considerable ambivalence about methodology.

3. The detractors of methodology Sigmund Freud (Sterba 1982:120) wrote that: ‘Methodologists remind me of people who clean their glasses so thoroughly that they never have time to look through them’. Later, C. Wright Mills argued that much methodological discussion simply ‘disturb[s] people who are at work’, as well as leading to ‘methodological inhibition’ (Mills 1959:27). There have also been complaints about ‘methodological narcissism’ (Nisbet 1963:148), and ‘methodolatry’ (Gouldner 1967; Janesick 1994:215).

4. But much depends on what is meant by ‘method’ and ‘methodology’ There is not much agreement about this. Very often, both advocates and critics of methodology are talking about different things.

5. Widespread appeal to method It is commonplace to insist that research should be ‘methodical’, ‘systematic’, or ‘rigorous’. This is true not just of mainstream forms of quantitative research, but also of qualitative inquiry, and even of its ‘radical’ versions: • Ethnomethodological conversation analysis: an insistence on rigorous analysis of what is ‘observable’ in properly transcribed audio data. • Miller and Rose (2008:4), echoing Foucault, advocate: ‘precise, meticulous and scholarly tracing of […] small and dispersed events […]’

6. Meanings of ‘method’ Is appeal to method just a matter of rhetoric? Or is there more substance to it? • Consistent pursuit of a goal rather than haphazard decisions moment-to-moment. • A set of means that is reasonably reliable in achieving a particular sort of outcome on different occasions. • Unlike intuition or skills, methods can be made explicit (though not necessarily fully explicit), and are therefore subject to reflection, individual and collective.

7. Methodology The study of the methods used in research, but it extends to other issues as well, to: • The purpose of the type of inquiry concerned, perhaps including what social role it plays. • What product(s) it aims at. • The nature of the objects it studies. • How these can best be understood. • What forms of inference it can and should employ, such as modes of concept formation. • How its products should be assessed.

8. Three currently influential forms of methodology • Methodology as technique: describing different methods and the rules for their use. • Methodology as natural history: emphasising the contingency of research, so that learning must be through practice and example. • Methodology as philosophy: insisting that attention must be paid to the varying epistemological, ontological, and praxiological assumptions on which different kinds of social research rely.

9. Some justifiable concerns about method and methodology Research :– • Cannot be reduced to technique. It relies upon philosophical assumptions. • But it cannot be treated as entirely a philosophical matter. And it cannot wait upon the resolution of philosophical problems. • As a form of practice it is pragmatic: it relies upon tacit knowledge, skill, and judgment. • But methodology is also normative, not just a matter of descriptive natural history.

10. The importance of methodology • The use of methods is essential to the distinctive character and authority of research, notwithstanding the role of vision, creativity, intuition, luck, etc. • Also essential is methodological reflection, both on the part of individual researchers and through collective discussion. • An important aspect of this is reflection on the limits of inquiry. • Indeed, there are some deep, unresolved problems of method facing social researchers.

11. Some methodological conflicts today • Quantitative versus qualitative versus mixed methods research. • Causal versus interpretive analysis. • Constructionism versus naturalism, for example the radical critique of interviews (see Hammersley 2008:ch5). • Value-neutrality versus ‘critical’ or normative research. • Disciplinary inquiry versus participatory research.

12. A plethora of methodologies Different views within methodology have led to, or at least reflect, different approaches in research, these approaches often being described as competing methodologies or methodological paradigms. They involve divergent conceptions of the goal of research, of the objects being investigated, of how knowledge can be produced, as well as of what methods should be employed.

13. Difficulties and dangers • As a researcher, how does one negotiate the challenging methodological terrain, given that there is little agreement about what can and should be studied, or about how to study it? • Pragmatism versus paradigm-commitment. Both can lead to routinisation: to the neglect of methodological reflectiveness, in particular about the limits to what can be produced. • At the same time, too much reflexivity will result in no research being done at all!

14. Summary • Method and methodology are essential to social science. • And social inquiry faces some severe methodological problems. • This is reflected in the proliferation of methodologies or methodological paradigms that has taken place. • Unfortunately, this has worsened rather than eased the problems. • There needs to be more careful, open-minded methodological reflection, along with caution about the capabilities of social science.

15. Conclusion: answering the question • If what is meant by ‘methodology’ is ‘methodological reflectiveness’, then all researchers need it, to a considerable degree. Methodology is not something that is restricted to the ‘training’ or ‘re-training’ of researchers. • It is essential because social science faces severe challenges, and limits, that are currently given insufficient attention. • At the same time, methodology cannot supply ‘the answers’ to the problems that researchers face, it can only provide resources to help recognise and tackle these problems.

16. Bibliography Gouldner, A. (1965) Enter Plato, New York, Basic Books. Hammersley, M. (2003) Guide to Natural Histories of Research, Available at: http://www.tlrp.org/rcbn/capacity/Activities/Themes/Expertise/guide.pdf Hammersley, M. (2008) Questioning Qualitative Inquiry, London, Sage. Hammersley, M. (2011) Methodology, Who Needs It?, Sage. Janesick, V. (1994) ‘The dance of qualitative research: metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning’, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks CA, Sage. Miller, P. and Rose, N. (2008) Governing the Present, Cambridge, Polity. Mills, C. W. (1959a) ‘On intellectual craftsmanship’, in Gross, L. (ed.) Symposium on Sociological Theory, Evanston ILL, Row, Peterson. Nisbet, R. (1963) ‘Sociology as an art form’, in Stein, M. and Vidich, A. (eds) Sociology on Trial, Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice-Hall. Sterba, R. (1982) Reminiscences of a Viennese Psychoanalyst, Detroit ILL, Wayne State University Press.