Introduction to methodology in the social sciences and humanities

Achieving a methodological approach which is consonant with one’s own values and concerns typically involves the longest struggle in research work and the deepest kinds of engagement’ (Salmon, 1992:77).

Resource aims

This series of web pages and audio streams is designed for research students from the social sciences and humanities. It will be of relevance to students doing qualitative human and social science research in the divisions of education, arts and social sciences; business; health sciences; and, less commonly,  information technology, engineering and the environment. The topics that will be covered include positivism, interpretivism, hermeneutics, critical theory, structuralism, poststructuralism and deconstruction.

This series of web resources does not provide discipline specific applications of methodology, nor does it provide detailed information about specific methods. For support in developing your understanding of discipline based theoretical applications and debates, please see the research design web links on this site and division, centre and school based resources and research forums.

Introduction and definitions

Why do researchers need to know about theory, philosophy and all these big words anyway? The answer, in simple terms, is that the assumptions social science researchers make when they produce knowledge are grounded in ongoing unresolved theoretical and philosophical questions. This means that social science researchers cannot afford to take anything as given. Hart (1998:86) provides a useful framework upon which to extrapolate the key areas of uncertainty:

What is reality? Ontological issues are concerned with what we believe to exist and what we believe we can investigate. For example, what is the subject-matter of disciplines like psychology, sociology, economics ('society', 'class', 'economy', 'individual', 'mind')? Do these things really exist? Are there real spatiotemporal objects that exist independently of the concepts and language with which we understand them?

How do we come to know things? Epistemological issues are concerned with how we come to know about ourselves and our world. For example, can knowledge only be gained through the senses via experimentation and an observation of  'facts'. Or, do we produce knowledge; does knowledge ultimately arise in human experience and interaction with the objects in our world? How can we 'see' culture when we are ourselves saturated in culture?

What research process will ensure valid knowledge? Methodological issues are concerned with the grounds upon which we wish to claim to have produced 'valid' knowledge. For example, should we validate our knowledge on the basis of observable or quantifiable phenomenon? Is it important that our research participants agree with our research claims? Should we base our research claims on theory, or should we eschew theory? Is it important to reveal our our own internal values and perceptions?

What is the role of values and ethics? Axiological issues are concerned with the nature of value and with what kinds of things have value. For example, what is good, beautiful, ethical, moral? What is ultimately worthwhile for its own sake? Are values absolute or subjective?

What are reliable techniques for collecting data about claims? Data-collection issues are concerned with the techniques used to collect data. For example, should I use a survey questionnaire, in-depth interviews, document analysis or an observational case study? Is quantitative data better than qualitative data because it is more 'objective'?

What is the language of research? Rhetorical issues are concerned with how we talk about and write up research. For example, is writing in the third person more 'objective' than the first person?

Some further terms it may be useful to define:

Methods: 'the techniques or procedures used to gather and analyse data related to some research question or hypothesis' (Crotty, 1998:3)

Methodology: 'the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods, and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes' (Crotty, 1998:3). This includes not only the practical aspects of the research such as method and action plan, but also the philosophical and theoretical perspectives of the researcher.

Paradigm: ‘A general organizing framework for social theory and research. It includes basic assumptions, underpinning questions asked, research practice and theory, and approaches or methods for finding the answers to questions' (Neuman, 2000:515).

Research design: The research plan that is devised to obtain answers to the research questions. The research design can encompass the research aims, hypotheses or questions, the methodology, methods of data collection, and the strategies used to analyse the data. The research design tells the reader what you did, how you did it, and why you did it in this way. In this section of your thesis or research proposal you explain and justify the theoretical and philosophical assumptions underpinning the research, and the methods or strategies adopted.

Theoretical perspective: 'the philosophical stance informing the methodology and thus providing a context for grounding its logic and criteria' (Crotty, 1998:3).

top^

Important considerations
 

Researchers do not choose their theoretical paradigm depending upon the nature of their question or methods. All researchers have a theoretical orientation, typically given by the disciplines and literatures they have been exposed to. Your theoretical leaning shapes the questions you ask and the research you are doing. For this reason, a shift in theoretical orientation in the process of your research will usually lead to a major reframing of your research question and a transformation of the research design.

The social theory that underpins research in the social sciences and humanities grows out of wider philosophical debates and crosses discipline boundaries. This can often explain research collaboration among scholars from different disciplines, as well as disagreement and rivalry among scholars within the same discipline.

While there are significant areas of overlap between methodological frameworks, each has its own inherent logic. This means that methodological frameworks are not easily reconciled, and you should be wary of attempts to ‘combine’ them. This does not mean that you cannot borrow insights and ideas from a wide range of appropriately referenced sources. What you cannot combine are conceptually incompatible ideas.

On the other hand, each approach has developed within a dialogue of scholars, and there are many areas of shared understanding. Methodological paradigms are best understood as overlapping concentric circles, rather than as stand alone pillars. Concepts within social theory and philosophy are only meaningful in relation to one another. It is impossible to learn about your own approach, without learning about at least some of the others.

The moral of the story?
 

Beware the theoretical soup – or getting lost in theory and feeling like you need to have it all sorted out before you can take your next step. As a research student with a limited amount of time to complete your research, your aim is to become aware enough of methodology to:

The safest habit you can adopt is a daily writing practice. Writing about your own research is the best way to ensure that you understand what you are reading, and how it applies to your work.

Beware of theoretical ignorance and intolerance. This might involve:

Remember, scholarship involves both critical engagement and respect for the intellectual labours of those who have brought us to where we stand today. Being clear about your own and others' theoretical orientations will enable you to understand and engage in scholarly debate in a self aware and professional manner. An awareness of the complexity of the issues involved leads to greater theoretical tolerance and an appreciation of the value that the different approaches have to offer. Theoretical awareness will also help you to evolve beyond a common sense approach to your research problem, and to read, write and think at a more conceptual level.

top^

Key methodological frameworks

A brief overview of the major methodological frameworks is provided below. Each methodological framework will be considered at greater length in the corresponding web page and audio stream for that topic.

Positivism:

Constructionism:

Interpretivism:

Hermeneutics:

Critical Theory:

Structuralism:

Foucault:

Derrida:

top^

Example

The example below is designed to show how different methodological frameworks lead to different questions, research designs, and recommendations. The topic or problem space that each is concerned with is the role of the private automobile and of urban planners in the management of urban landscapes.

When reading the different approaches you might like to consider the following questions:
1. What set of methodological assumptions informs each approach?
2. How have these assumptions shaped the research method, questions and findings?
3. What possibilities for movement in urban space does each approach open up or close down?

Research example 1

Question: What modelling system can deliver forecasts of factors of interest (eg congestion, road deaths, pollution) over a defined time horizon for strategic urban planning.

The limitations of existing transport models are widely accepted. A modelling system is needed that can predict future scenarios for use by planners and analysts to understand complex systems and the likely impact of their policies and decisions. This is critical if planning decisions are to be made in an informed, intelligent and structured manner, rather than on the basis of ignorance or any variety of political influences. The problem with structured searches of complex systems is that they draw upon deterministic relationships between the input parameters and the final results, whereas in reality no simple algorithmic solution exists. A broad genetic algorithm that can factor in probability is one of the techniques available to obtain a solution. It is necessary to have a model that is aware of factors that are controllable so that recommendations can be made that are within our power to implement. Some of the factors tested include: population and urban sprawl, road supply and congestion, taxes, fuel prices, public transport availability and fares, decentralised versus centralised workplaces, flexible working hours, road speeds, road deaths, economic climate and cost of living, and the number of cars per household and vehicle usage. The mechanism developed by the genetic algorithm can inform us of: the factors that require manipulation (eg fuel prices); by what degree (eg 23%); and in which direction (eg increased) so as to bring about some defined 'preferred future' (we will not enter into the philosophical question as to who constructs these preferred futures); where desirable levels of given factors have been nominated (eg congestion, road deaths, pollution, etc); for some specified time in the future.

Adapted from Chamber, L and Taylor, M 1992, ’A new modelling paradigm for strategic planning’, paper presented at the 17th Australian Transport Research Forum.

Research example 2

What underlying structural mechanisms have given rise to the current organisation of urban space, and how can we change existing arrangements to enhance human freedom and well being?

City planning and the dominance of the private automobile is neither ‘scientific’, ‘rational’ nor ‘economic’. Capitalist interests ensure that cities are organised in ways that prioritise the transportation of workers from home to work in order to sell their labour power. The dominance of the car within the urban landscape is also caused by pressure upon public agencies by oil and automobile companies. Capitalist ideology also acts to instil the value of private property ownership, rather than the social redistribution of wealth in society. Some solutions, beyond total social revolution and redistribution of social capital, are public provision of public transport to ensure equity, economy, safety, and minimisation of environmental damage. Employers should contribute to the social costs of transporting workers to their place of employment, and workers and consumers need to organise into effective lobby groups.

Adapted from Frank, H 1986, ‘Mass transport and class struggle’, in Transport sociology: social aspects of transport planning, ed E DeBoer, Pergamon Press, Great Britain.

Research example 3

Question: How are the economic, social and cultural circumstances of the 1990s influencing women’s transport patterns and car use?

Strategies to address the problem of increased growth in motor vehicle travel has tended to revolve around technological and structural solutions related to the built environment and transport infrastructure. The research has not given sufficient consideration to the social and cultural determinants of private car use. In particular, existing research has failed to recognise that transport use is gendered, and that women (and men) are active participants in the creation of transport choices. Much of the literature is male-biased and views women as a group for whom the private automobile is relatively unimportant. Women's use of public transport is viewed as a form of ‘disadvantage’. This study conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with 10 women. We found that non-work-related trips are more important for women who are more likely to make linked trips (dropping off children, picking up shopping) than men. Women are also more likely than men to travel out of peak hours and to make local, weekend, and intra-suburban trips. While the availability of transport does operate as a constraint, women utilise a diversity of travel options experiencing both the private car and public transport positively. Transport, and in particular the motor vehicle, enables women to meet their expectations of themselves as wives, mothers and workers. It is important that women's use of the motor vehicle and women's mobility is not forgotten or placed in question within planning geared to reduce car use, traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. What is needed is a combination of more conventional strategies with an understanding of the diverse cultural influences that are brought to bear upon transport choices.

Adapted from Dowling, R, Gollner, A and O’Dwyer, B 1999, ‘A gender perspective on urban car use: a qualitative case study’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 101-110.

Research example 4

What historical and discursive relations have shaped 'normal' travel behaviour, and what possibilities for transgression are opened up by denaturalising the travelling subject?

The dominance of the private automobile cannot be understood simply as the result of economic ‘interests’ prevailing over other public concerns such as health, safety and aesthetics. Nor is the organisation of urban space a neutral outcome of technological progress. It was the result of a political contest about the ‘rational’ and ‘economic’ use of urban space, the best interests of the population, and the ‘freedom of the individual’; a contest in which the values of urban aesthetics, and public health and safety have often been integral. Since the early nineteenth century, the street has gradually transformed from a space of diverse activity (meeting, playing, socialising, promenading, hawking, gambling, trading) to a space of circulation. This was accomplished via the rise of an understanding of travel as optimally an ‘economic use of time’. Within urban planning and engineering discourse ‘transport’ has become dominant. It is a concept that privileges the ‘economic’ journey, or the journey from A to B. The new framing of the city has not brought more freedom to urban travellers. Urban travellers are more disciplined and regulated than ever before. Movement within public space is strictly confined within defined routes and spaces that privilege and normalise the private motor vehicle over other modes of travel and other uses of urban space. Urban planners have not been neutral within this process, but are powerful political actors shaping the field of possible actions via pronouncements about the ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’ ordering of urban space. The answer is not simply better cleaner cars, more efficient traffic regulation and infrastructure, public transport, or employer accountability for the costs of transport. What is needed is a subversion of the ‘economic journey’ to enable a more diverse set of purposes for the travelling subject and the urban environment. We need ways of thinking about travel, our freedom and the city that open possibilities beyond the need to discipline the travelling public to move from A to B in an efficient, clean, safe and speedy manner.

Adapted from Bonham, J 2002, ‘Safety and speed: ordering the street of transport’, PhD thesis, University of Adelaide and Ferretti, D and Bonham, J 201, ‘Travel blending: wither regulation?’, Australian Geographical Studies, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 302-312.

Writing about research design
 

Placement of research design within the thesis
 

Some typical options include:

1. a separate chapter, following the literature review, describes the study design and its underlying assumptions
2. research design is combined with results and discussion within the middle chapters between the introduction and conclusion
3. research design is covered in the introduction, and not discussed in detail elsewhere
4. there is no research design chapter, but there may be theoretical discussion chapter/s to explain the basis for the critique or development of ideas in following chapters.

How much do I write about the research design or the model I am using?
 

When the method, methodology or model is well known, provide references, but do not add extensive detail. Be as concise as possible, and consider covering the method within sections that include results and discussion, or within the introductory chapter of the thesis.

When the method, methodology or model is less well known, provide references and information about its essential features. Be as concise as possible, and consider dedicating a separate chapter to a discussion of method or methodology.

When you have modified a known method, methodology or model, provide references, the essential features of the modification, and the purpose of the modification (unless the modification is trivial, in which case it does not need to be mentioned). Be as concise as possible, and consider dedicating a separate chapter to a discussion of method.

When the method, methodology or model is unique, provide enough descriptive information, supported by references, to enable the reader to evaluate or repeat the study. Be as concise as possible, and consider dedicating a separate chapter to a discussion of method or methodology.

References used in the development of this web page

Audi, R 1999, The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Crotty, M 1998, The Foundations of Social Research, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Dreyfus, H and Rabinow, P 1982, Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.

Greenfield, T 2002, Research methods for postgraduates, Arnold, London.

Hart, C 1998, Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination, Sage, London.

Holloway, I and Walker J 2000, Getting a PhD in health and social care, Blackwell, London.

Hollway, W Subjectivity and method in psychology: gender, meaning and science, Sage, New York.

Hughes, J 1990, The philosophy of social research, 2nd edn, Longman, New York.

Lather, P 1986, ‘Research as praxis’, Harvard Educational Review, vol. 56. no. 3. pp. 257-277.

Marshall, G (ed) 1994, The concise Oxford dictionary of sociology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

May, T 1997, Social research: issues, methods and process, Open University Press, Buckingham.

McHoul, A and Grace, W 1993, A Foucault primer: discourse, power and the subject, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. (see chapter 1)

Morrow, R and Brown, D 1994, Critical theory and methodology: contemporary social theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Miller, E 1993, Questions that matter: an invitation to philosophy, McGraw Hill, New York.

Neuman, W L 2000, Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, Fourth edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Norris, C 2002, Deconstruction, 3rd edn, Routledge, London.

Piantanida, M and Garman, N 1999, The qualitative dissertation: a guide for students and faculty, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Salmon, P 1992, Achieving a PhD: ten students’ experiences, Trentham Books, Staffordshire.

von Wright, G 1993, ‘Two traditions’, in Social research: philosophy, politics and practice, ed M Hammersley, Sage, London.

This web resource was developed by Wendy Bastalich

 

top^