METHODOLOGICAL 'MAPS' AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS

1

METHODOLOGICAL ‘MAPS’ AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS: A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH

to use the references themselves as well as other sources to judge the merits of the explanations that I offer.

Trevor Gale Research as methodology, method and technique Introduction

Given such forewarning, this paper outlines the nature of research in terms of

Research is difficult work, whether you are new to its demands or whether you have

methodology, method, and technique. Those familiar with literary and cultural theory

been engaged in such activity for some time. And it is work that is not always helped

might care to relate these terms to ideology (= methodology), discourse (= method)

by the academic literature on research. This is because there are a considerable

and text (= technique). Very briefly, “ideology” or ‘each mode of thought

number of terms and concepts used in relation to it that are not all used in similar

incorporates an interrelated set of concepts, beliefs, assumptions and values that allow

ways. For example, there is no universal agreement amongst researchers concerning

events and situations to be interpreted in ways that are appropriate to their respective

what is meant by methodology. In one sense, this is hardly surprising. Academics are

concerns’ (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, p. 114). Whereas:

much like people generally; they can often have different perspectives of the same events or issues and they can have different interpretations for the same word(s)

“Discourse” refers to particular ways of organising meaning-making practices.

and/or similarly named concepts.

Discourse as a mode of governance delimits the range of possible practices under its authority and organises the articulation of these practices within time

I begin in this way not just to confirm what many already suspect - that research can

and space although differently and often unequally for different people. Such

be confusing - but also to help you understand some of the reasons for that confusion

governance delimits fields of relevance and definitions of legitimate

(that is, that researchers do not all agree) and to warn you that the explanation of

perspectives and fixes norms for concept elaboration and the expression of

research that is presented in this paper is just one way in which it can be understood.

experience. “Text” refers to a particular concrete manifestation of practices

Not all researchers would agree with it or at least with parts of it. Nonetheless, I

organised within a particular discourse. In everyday life, meaning-making does

believe this paper provides an explanation that is justifiable and helpful in making

not exist in isolation, but forms complexes that are organised contingently

sense of the important work of research.

through time and space. Examples of text include written passages, oral communication, nonverbal communication accomplished through body

You should take note from the outset, then, that some of the references to which I

movement and expression, and visual forms of representation such as

refer and methodology texts in general, do not always entirely agree with the

paintings, photographs, and sculpture. (Lewis & Simon, 1986, pp. 457-458)

explanations that I offer with respect to research. Where this is a major issue, I will try to point this out. Where it is not, you will need to read with a critical eye, judging for yourself the points of similarity and departure. Even more critically, you might wish Gale, T. (1998) Methodological ‘maps’ and key assumptions: A framework for understanding research. Unpublished paper. Central Queensland University

2

In this paper, my intention is to briefly outline each of the terms: methodology,

This personalisation of methodology - its relationship to our own view of the world

method and technique; to provide you with a framework for understanding a

and the principles that organise it - is very important in two respects. First, it alerts us

somewhat confusing and large body of literature.

to the possibility that there is not just one methodology. We do not all ‘see’ the world in the same way. We do not all draw on the same set of principles to guide our

Research as methodology

actions. There are similarities and differences amongst researchers on these issues and consequently they can be loosely (and sometimes tightly) categorised accordingly. It

Methodological origins

also explains why researchers can be so animated in support of their own research

The word methodology is based on the Greek words metá (with, after), hódos (the

position - because it is so closely related to who they are as individuals. A second and

way) - sometimes combined as méthodos (a following after) - and lógos (reason,

related point is that the personalisation of methodology helps us to understand how

account, reckoning). Relating these to the field of research, methodology can be

we might know what kind of researchers we are - to recognise our research or

understood as the reasoning that informs particular ways of doing research, or the

methodological personalities, if you like. In other words, the researcher you are is the

principles underlying the organisation of research activity. Associated words which

person you are. By reflecting on what guides your actions it is possible to determine

also involve this concept of a system of principles for guidance include ‘philosophy’

what methodology will most likely guide your research activity.

(Gk: philos - a system of wisdom) and ‘ideology’ (Gk: ideo - a combination of ideas; idéa - opinion, view, belief). Drawing on these ideas, some researchers refer to their

Methodological categories

methodology as the conceptual framework or the fundamental assumptions that guide

The delineation of ways of thinking about research can be very broadly made

their research.

according to whether researchers are primarily interested in the physical world (the ‘forces of nature’) or the social world (the interactions amongst people). Within these

Another important understanding is that a researcher’s methodology - the system of

two broad categories there are a number of sub-categories. For example, amongst

principles that guides his/her research - is based on his/her understanding of the

those whose interest is with the physical world are physicists, chemists, biologists,

world, including its social or physical attributes. That is, these principles are not

etc. - areas which are often referred to as the physical, natural or even ‘hard’ sciences.

‘plucked from the air’ but are interrelated with our experiences of the world and the

Whereas, those whose interests are in the social world include sociologists,

ideas that we form about those experiences - how we view the world or our world

psychologists, anthropologists, etc. - the social or ‘soft’ sciences. These sub-

view. Of course, we have not all had the same life experiences and we do not all think

categories are generally called disciplines, which implies particular traditional ways

about the world and the principles that organise it in the same way. Also, it seems that

of thinking about the world and particular traditions of how research into the world

the longer we live, the more experiences we have and the more we tend to reflect on

should be conducted.

them. Our view of the world is always under review, it is not static.

Gale, T. (1998) Methodological ‘maps’ and key assumptions: A framework for understanding research. Unpublished paper. Central Queensland University

3

Because education is a social activity, educational researchers belong to the broader

necessarily ‘pure’. That is, they can overlap and be conjoined with others as is

group of social researchers. Interestingly, however, education has not historically

illustrated in the positions of liberal-feminists and marxist-feminists, etc.

been regarded as a discipline in its own right but has been informed by a range of other social disciplines. Hence, there are sociologies of education, educational

Ways of categorising methodologies do not stop with disciplines and social theories.

psychologies, political economies of education, etc. Stephen Kemmis has described

Some theorists attempt to categorise research methodologies according to the patterns

this historical form of educational research as being research on or about education.

of research within various social theories. These patterns are often referred to as

From this perspective education can be little more than a site for research into issues

research paradigms (Gk: parádeigma - pattern) and are another source of

that are more concerned with sociology, psychology, and other social disciplines, than

disagreement amongst researchers so heated that they are sometimes referred to as

they are with education. Kemmis argues that this kind of research does not tell us

paradigm wars. (Thomas Kuhn, in his book The structure of scientific revolutions

enough about the nature of education and that we also need to be concerned with

(1970), is often attributed with establishing the term ‘paradigm’ within the academic

research in and through education. Kemmis’ argument is for the establishment of an

literature on research. For those who are interested, Carr & Kemmis (1986, pp. 71-75)

education discipline and reminds us that none of the social disciplines are ‘natural’

provide a good summary of the notion of paradigms and its relation to the positivist

but have been constructed at some point in time.

view of science.) To add to this ‘war of positions’, there is not just one set of agreed paradigms (or models of research, as Hitchcock and Hughes (1989) refer to them).

While disciplines are organised around fields of interest, theorists also categorise

Hence, some distinguish between:

social research according to different systems of principles, assumptions and beliefs concerning the social world or what are known as social theories, such as liberalism,

(i) quantitative and qualitative research (according to whether social researchers adopt

marxism, socialism, feminism, post-structuralism, postmodernism, queer theory, etc.

the principles of the physical sciences and apply them to the social realm or whether

These theories about social relations inform social disciplines in different ways. That

they adopt alternative principles). Renata Tesch’s comments on this distinction are

is, any one discipline can be influenced by more than one social theory. For example,

worth noting:

some sociologists are liberals, others are marxists while still others are poststructuralists and postmodernists, etc.

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as qualitative research. There are only qualitative data. In many studies both quantitative and qualitative data are

While there is not space here to explore these different social theories in any great

used; so if we wanted to distinguish research according to data types, there

detail - a search of the library will reveal a host of literature on many of these theories

should be a third one: ‘mixed’. Of course, everyone would consider this quite

- there are two things to which I want to draw your attention. First, social theories are

ridiculous. ‘Qualitative’ research, as the term is used by many scholars, means

not static but are constantly subject to change, producing revised positions like neo-

a certain approach to knowledge production. (Tesch, 1990, p. 55, emphasis

liberalism, neo-marxism, post-marxism, etc. Secondly, social theories are not

original)

Gale, T. (1998) Methodological ‘maps’ and key assumptions: A framework for understanding research. Unpublished paper. Central Queensland University

4

In my view, Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) analysis of research assumptions remains (ii) positive, interpretive, and critical research - according to whether the researcher is

helpful, even though it is now a little dated. While they refer to ontology,

interested in generating technical, practical or emancipatory knowledge. (See Carr &

epistemology, human nature, and methodology as organising principles in describing

Kemmis (1986) and Kemmis, (1995)); and

different approaches to research, I prefer to collapse their categories into three sets of relationships and to add one further set of relations in response to more recent post-

(iii) (pre-modern), modern and postmodern research - sometimes referred to as

structural debates.

positivist and postpositivist research - according to whether the researcher is primarily concerned with constructing or deconstructing generalisations about the social world.

In brief, ontological and epistemological issues can be considered in terms of how

(See Blackmore (1987) and Lather (1991)).

different approaches position themselves in relation to objectivity and subjectivity. Secondly, as Burrell and Morgan (1979) imply, assumptions about human nature

Methodological assumptions

concern issues of structure and agency. (Anthony Giddens (1979, p. 11), for example,

You may have noticed from reading the literature on these issues that each author

explains this relationship by suggesting that ‘we [agency] create society [structure] at

attempts to categorise various research methodologies according to particular sets of

the same time as we are created by it.’) Thirdly, methodology - as described by

criteria. Some of the criteria used from author to author are very similar and some are

Burrell and Morgan (1979) - is really concerned with relationships between theory

not. And certainly, there seems to be a multitude of criteria that these authors use to

and data - whether theory and/or data should drive research activity. In addition to

define each approach to research. In my view, Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan

these three relational ‘sets’, recent post-structural and postmodern inspired debates

(1979) provide a much more succinct categorisation of research approaches, which

have drawn attention to the relative importance of space in the social and material

focuses on four sets of research assumptions about the nature of the social world and

world. Many of these discussions have criticised modern research for its ‘space-

the way in which it may be investigated. They suggest that their analysis of research,

blinkered historicism’ (Soja, 1996 p. 137), challenging previous understandings of

based on these assumptions, is:

being in the world with assertions about the primacy of space over time or geography over history.

... offered not as a mere classificatory device, but as an important tool for negotiating social theory. It draws attention to key assumptions. It allows one

Burrell and Morgan (1979) describe these relationships in terms of continuums and

to focus on precise issues which differentiate socio-scientific approaches. It

suggest that while there are approaches to research that adopt positions at the end of

draws attention to the degree of congruency between the four sets of

these continuums, there are also some that adopt ‘intermediate points of view’ (p. 8)

assumptions about social science which characterise any given theorists point

somewhere between the extremes of objectivity and subjectivity, structure and

of view. (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 8)

agency, theory and data, and space and time (to add my fourth category to their analysis). My own preferred approach to research, which can be described as critical

Gale, T. (1998) Methodological ‘maps’ and key assumptions: A framework for understanding research. Unpublished paper. Central Queensland University

5

social research, rejects these continuums and their extremes in preference for

Thirdly, research methods are not the exclusive domain of one research methodology.

dichotomous relationships. That is, I do not aim for an intermediary position but one

So, interpretivists, feminists, critical theorists, etc. might all employ an ethnographic

that sees these ‘extremes’ as possible at the same moment. From this perspective,

method, or a case study or an action research, and so on.

objectivity and subjectivity, for example, are not opposites or end points on a continuum but different descriptions of the same social reality.

And finally, research methods are not necessarily ‘pure’ but can overlap, with such ‘combinations’ as: phenomenological action research, ethnographic case studies, etc.

Research as method

Further, some researchers, such as critical researchers, often preface their method with

As mentioned above, the word ‘method’ comes from the Greek hódos, meaning ‘the

words to distinguish their activity from that of others. Hence: critical case study,

way’. From this perspective, research methods are modes or ways of conducting

critical ethnography, emancipatory action research, etc.

research inquiry (much like discourses are ways of constructing and interpreting meanings). There are four broad observations that I want to make in relation to

Research as technique

research methods.

The word ‘technique’ comes from the Greek word tekhne and implies expertise or the art or craft of performing a particular task. It also implies a connection with a larger

First, methods or ‘ways’ of doing research are necessarily informed by particular

technology and in this signals that research techniques are guided by particular

methodologies (discussed above). And because of this close relationship, between

research methodologies and methods.

methodologies and methods, this often causes some confusion in the academic literature. That is, methods of research - for example, case study, ethnography,

Research techniques are often referred to by writers in the research literature as

ethnomethodology,

analysis,

research instruments and even research methods (as opposed to method, in the

historiography, etc. - are often (misleadingly) referred to as if they are methodologies.

singular); the latter description adding to their readers and their own confusion. Put

action

research,

phenomenology,

discourse

very simply, methods are concerned with the ‘how’ of research whereas techniques or Secondly, while research methods draw their rationale from particular research

instruments are concerned with the ‘what’ of research. More specific details with

methodologies, there is not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between them.

respect to research techniques can be found in most methodology texts. Here, though,

That is, methodologies can inspire several different methods of research. For

I wish to make two broad comments.

example, critically orientated researchers might just as freely engage in ethnography as in action research or case study.

First, while research techniques include such things as interviews, observations, questionnaires, checklists, etc., researchers need to be mindful that there is not just one way in which to ‘perform’ these. In other words, there are a variety of ways in

Gale, T. (1998) Methodological ‘maps’ and key assumptions: A framework for understanding research. Unpublished paper. Central Queensland University

6

which to conduct interviews, for example, each informed by a particular method of research.

Soja, E. (1996). History: geography: modernity. In S. During (Ed.), The cultural studies reader (pp. 135-150). New York: Routledge.

Secondly, research techniques can be loosely divided into those that are used to collect data and those that are used to analyse data. However, some researchers (like myself), while recognising the distinction between these two groups, would suggest that even data collection techniques are implicated in data analysis since decisions about what data to collect and how to represent it also involve a degree of analysis. References Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Knowing through action research. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Blackmore, J. (1997). Shifting the gaze: Feminism, leadership and educational change. London: Open University Press. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London: Heinemann. Giddens, A. (1979) The class structure of advanced societies. London: Hutchinson. Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1989). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction to school-based research. London: Routledge. Kemmis, S. (1995, ). Action research and communicative action: Changing teacher practices. Paper presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference, San Francisco. Kuhn, T. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lather, P. (1991). Feminist research in education: Within/against. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Lewis, M. & Simon, R. (1986) A discourse not intended for her: Learning and teaching within patriarchy. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), pp. 457-472.

Gale, T. (1998) Methodological ‘maps’ and key assumptions: A framework for understanding research. Unpublished paper. Central Queensland University