Methodology
Part of a series on |
Research |
---|
Philosophy portal |
In its most common sense, methodology is the study of
Methodologies are traditionally divided into quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative research is the main methodology of the natural sciences. It uses precise numerical measurements. Its goal is usually to find universal laws used to make predictions about future events. The dominant methodology in the natural sciences is called the scientific method. It includes steps like observation and the formulation of a hypothesis. Further steps are to test the hypothesis using an experiment, to compare the measurements to the expected results, and to publish the findings.
Qualitative research is more characteristic of the
Many discussions in methodology concern the question of whether the quantitative approach is superior, especially whether it is adequate when applied to the social domain. A few theorists reject methodology as a discipline in general. For example, some argue that it is useless since methods should be used rather than studied. Others hold that it is harmful because it restricts the
Definitions
The term "methodology" is associated with a variety of meanings. In its most common usage, it refers either to a method, to the field of inquiry studying methods, or to
As method
The term "methodology" is sometimes used as a synonym for the term "method". A method is a way of reaching some predefined goal.
As study of methods
However, many theorists emphasize the differences between the terms "method" and "methodology".
Methodology can be understood as the middle ground between concrete particular methods and the abstract and general issues discussed by the philosophy of science.[11][15] In this regard, methodology comes after formulating a research question and helps the researchers decide what methods to use in the process. For example, methodology should assist the researcher in deciding why one method of sampling is preferable to another in a particular case or which form of data analysis is likely to bring the best results. Methodology achieves this by explaining, evaluating and justifying methods. Just as there are different methods, there are also different methodologies. Different methodologies provide different approaches to how methods are evaluated and explained and may thus make different suggestions on what method to use in a particular case.[15][11]
According to Aleksandr Georgievich Spirkin, "[a] methodology is a system of principles and general ways of organising and structuring theoretical and practical activity, and also the theory of this system".[16][17] Helen Kara defines methodology as "a contextual framework for research, a coherent and logical scheme based on views, beliefs, and values, that guides the choices researchers make".[18] Ginny E. Garcia and Dudley L. Poston understand methodology either as a complex body of rules and postulates guiding research or as the analysis of such rules and procedures. As a body of rules and postulates, a methodology defines the subject of analysis as well as the conceptual tools used by the analysis and the limits of the analysis. Research projects are usually governed by a structured procedure known as the research process. The goal of this process is given by a research question, which determines what kind of information one intends to acquire.[19][20]
As discussion of background assumptions
Some theorists prefer an even wider understanding of methodology that involves not just the description, comparison, and evaluation of methods but includes additionally more general philosophical issues. One reason for this wider approach is that discussions of when to use which method often take various background assumptions for granted, for example, concerning the goal and nature of research. These assumptions can at times play an important role concerning which method to choose and how to follow it.
The discussion of background assumptions can include
For the
Other discussions of abstract theoretical issues in the philosophy of science are also sometimes included.
Related terms and issues
Viknesh Andiappan and Yoke Kin Wan use the field of
One question concerning the definition of methodology is whether it should be understood as a descriptive or a
Types
Theorists often distinguish various general types or approaches to methodology. The most influential classification contrasts quantitative and qualitative methodology.[4][30][19][16]
Quantitative and qualitative
Quantitative research is closely associated with the
Qualitative research is characterized in various ways in the academic literature but there are very few precise definitions of the term. It is often used in contrast to quantitative research for forms of study that do not quantify their subject matter numerically.[32][30] However, the distinction between these two types is not always obvious and various theorists have argued that it should be understood as a continuum and not as a dichotomy.[33][34][35] A lot of qualitative research is concerned with some form of human experience or behavior, in which case it tends to focus on a few individuals and their in-depth understanding of the meaning of the studied phenomena.[4] Examples of the qualitative method are a market researcher conducting a focus group in order to learn how people react to a new product or a medical researcher performing an unstructured in-depth interview with a participant from a new experimental therapy to assess its potential benefits and drawbacks.[30] It is also used to improve quantitative research, such as informing data collection materials and questionnaire design.[36] Qualitative research is frequently employed in fields where the pre-existing knowledge is inadequate. This way, it is possible to get a first impression of the field and potential theories, thus paving the way for investigating the issue in further studies.[32][30]
Quantitative methods dominate in the natural sciences but both methodologies are used in the social sciences.
Many discussions in the history of methodology center around the quantitative methods used by the natural sciences. A central question in this regard is to what extent they can be applied to other fields, like the social sciences and history.[14] The success of the natural sciences was often seen as an indication of the superiority of the quantitative methodology and used as an argument to apply this approach to other fields as well.[14][37] However, this outlook has been put into question in the more recent methodological discourse. In this regard, it is often argued that the paradigm of the natural sciences is a one-sided development of reason, which is not equally well suited to all areas of inquiry.[10][14] The divide between quantitative and qualitative methods in the social sciences is one consequence of this criticism.[14]
Which method is more appropriate often depends on the goal of the research. For example, quantitative methods usually excel for evaluating preconceived hypotheses that can be clearly formulated and measured. Qualitative methods, on the other hand, can be used to study complex individual issues, often with the goal of formulating new hypotheses. This is especially relevant when the existing knowledge of the subject is inadequate.
Qualitative and quantitative research are often associated with different research paradigms and background assumptions. Qualitative researchers often use an interpretive or critical approach while quantitative researchers tend to prefer a positivistic approach. Important disagreements between these approaches concern the role of objectivity and hard empirical data as well as the research goal of predictive success rather than in-depth understanding or social change.[19][40][41]
Others
Various other classifications have been proposed. One distinguishes between substantive and formal methodologies. Substantive methodologies tend to focus on one specific area of inquiry. The findings are initially restricted to this specific field but may be transferrable to other areas of inquiry. Formal methodologies, on the other hand, are based on a variety of studies and try to arrive at more general principles applying to different fields. They may also give particular prominence to the analysis of the language of science and the formal structure of scientific explanation.[42][16][43] A closely related classification distinguishes between philosophical, general scientific, and special scientific methods.[16][44][17]
One type of methodological outlook is called "proceduralism". According to it, the goal of methodology is to boil down the research process to a simple set of rules or a recipe that automatically leads to good research if followed precisely. However, it has been argued that, while this ideal may be acceptable for some forms of quantitative research, it fails for qualitative research. One argument for this position is based on the claim that research is not a technique but a craft that cannot be achieved by blindly following a method. In this regard, research depends on forms of creativity and improvisation to amount to good science.[14][45][46]
Other types include inductive, deductive, and transcendental methods.
Importance
It has been argued that a proper understanding of methodology is important for various issues in the field of research. They include both the problem of conducting efficient and reliable research as well as being able to validate knowledge claims by others.
Aleksandr Georgievich Spirkin argues that methodology, when understood in a wide sense, is of great importance since the world presents us with innumerable entities and relations between them.[16] Methods are needed to simplify this complexity and find a way of mastering it. On the theoretical side, this concerns ways of forming true beliefs and solving problems. On the practical side, this concerns skills of influencing nature and dealing with each other. These different methods are usually passed down from one generation to the next. Spirkin holds that the interest in methodology on a more abstract level arose in attempts to formalize these techniques to improve them as well as to make it easier to use them and pass them on. In the field of research, for example, the goal of this process is to find reliable means to acquire knowledge in contrast to mere opinions acquired by unreliable means. In this regard, "methodology is a way of obtaining and building up ... knowledge".[16][44]
Various theorists have observed that the interest in methodology has risen significantly in the 20th century.[16][14] This increased interest is reflected not just in academic publications on the subject but also in the institutionalized establishment of training programs focusing specifically on methodology.[14] This phenomenon can be interpreted in different ways. Some see it as a positive indication of the topic's theoretical and practical importance. Others interpret this interest in methodology as an excessive preoccupation that draws time and energy away from doing research on concrete subjects by applying the methods instead of researching them. This ambiguous attitude towards methodology is sometimes even exemplified in the same person. Max Weber, for example, criticized the focus on methodology during his time while making significant contributions to it himself.[14][50] Spirkin believes that one important reason for this development is that contemporary society faces many global problems. These problems cannot be solved by a single researcher or a single discipline but are in need of collaborative efforts from many fields. Such interdisciplinary undertakings profit a lot from methodological advances, both concerning the ability to understand the methods of the respective fields and in relation to developing more homogeneous methods equally used by all of them.[16][51]
Criticism
Most criticism of methodology is directed at one specific form or understanding of it. In such cases, one particular methodological theory is rejected but not methodology at large when understood as a field of research comprising many different theories.[14][10] In this regard, many objections to methodology focus on the quantitative approach, specifically when it is treated as the only viable approach.[14][37] Nonetheless, there are also more fundamental criticisms of methodology in general. They are often based on the idea that there is little value to abstract discussions of methods and the reasons cited for and against them. In this regard, it may be argued that what matters is the correct employment of methods and not their meticulous study. Sigmund Freud, for example, compared methodologists to "people who clean their glasses so thoroughly that they never have time to look through them".[14][52] According to C. Wright Mills, the practice of methodology often degenerates into a "fetishism of method and technique".[14][53]
Some even hold that methodological reflection is not just a waste of time but actually has negative side effects. Such an argument may be defended by analogy to other skills that work best when the agent focuses only on employing them. In this regard, reflection may interfere with the process and lead to avoidable mistakes.[54] According to an example by Gilbert Ryle, "[w]e run, as a rule, worse, not better, if we think a lot about our feet".[55][54] A less severe version of this criticism does not reject methodology per se but denies its importance and rejects an intense focus on it. In this regard, methodology has still a limited and subordinate utility but becomes a diversion or even counterproductive by hindering practice when given too much emphasis.[56]
Another line of criticism concerns more the general and abstract nature of methodology. It states that the discussion of methods is only useful in concrete and particular cases but not concerning abstract guidelines governing many or all cases. Some anti-methodologists reject methodology based on the claim that researchers need freedom to do their work effectively. But this freedom may be constrained and stifled by "inflexible and inappropriate guidelines". For example, according to Kerry Chamberlain, a good interpretation needs creativity to be provocative and insightful, which is prohibited by a strictly codified approach. Chamberlain uses the neologism "methodolatry" to refer to this alleged overemphasis on methodology.[56][14] Similar arguments are given in Paul Feyerabend's book "Against Method".[57][14]
However, these criticisms of methodology in general are not always accepted. Many methodologists defend their craft by pointing out how the efficiency and reliability of research can be improved through a proper understanding of methodology.[14][10]
A criticism of more specific forms of methodology is found in the works of the sociologist Howard S. Becker. He is quite critical of methodologists based on the claim that they usually act as advocates of one particular method usually associated with quantitative research.[10] An often-cited quotation in this regard is that "[m]ethodology is too important to be left to methodologists".[58][10][14] Alan Bryman has rejected this negative outlook on methodology. He holds that Becker's criticism can be avoided by understanding methodology as an inclusive inquiry into all kinds of methods and not as a mere doctrine for converting non-believers to one's preferred method.[10]
In different fields
Part of the importance of methodology is reflected in the number of fields to which it is relevant. They include the natural sciences and the social sciences as well as philosophy and mathematics.
Natural sciences
The dominant methodology in the
The scientific method is often broken down into several steps. In a typical case, the procedure starts with regular observation and the collection of information. These findings then lead the scientist to formulate a hypothesis describing and explaining the observed phenomena. The next step consists in conducting an experiment designed for this specific hypothesis. The actual results of the experiment are then compared to the expected results based on one's hypothesis. The findings may then be interpreted and published, either as a confirmation or disconfirmation of the initial hypothesis.[60][8][61]
Two central aspects of the scientific method are
A central discussion in this field concerns the distinction between the
Social sciences
Significantly more methodological variety is found in the
Focus groups are a qualitative research method often used in market research. They constitute a form of group interview involving a small number of demographically similar people. Researchers can use this method to collect data based on the interactions and responses of the participants. The interview often starts by asking the participants about their opinions on the topic under investigation, which may, in turn, lead to a free exchange in which the group members express and discuss their personal views. An important advantage of focus groups is that they can provide insight into how ideas and understanding operate in a cultural context. However, it is usually difficult to use these insights to discern more general patterns true for a wider public.[4][30][81] One advantage of focus groups is that they can help the researcher identify a wide range of distinct perspectives on the issue in a short time. The group interaction may also help clarify and expand interesting contributions. One disadvantage is due to the moderator's personality and group effects, which may influence the opinions stated by the participants.[30] When applied to cross-cultural settings, cultural and linguistic adaptations and group composition considerations are important to encourage greater participation in the group discussion.[36]
The nominal group technique is similar to focus groups with a few important differences. The group often consists of experts in the field in question. The group size is similar but the interaction between the participants is more structured. The goal is to determine how much agreement there is among the experts on the different issues. The initial responses are often given in written form by each participant without a prior conversation between them. In this manner, group effects potentially influencing the expressed opinions are minimized. In later steps, the different responses and comments may be discussed and compared to each other by the group as a whole.[30][82][83]
Most of these forms of data collection involve some type of
An important methodological debate in the field of social sciences concerns the question of whether they deal with hard, objective, and value-neutral facts, as the natural sciences do. Positivists agree with this characterization, in contrast to interpretive and critical perspectives on the social sciences.[19][86][41] According to William Neumann, positivism can be defined as "an organized method for combining deductive logic with precise empirical observations of individual behavior in order to discover and confirm a set of probabilistic causal laws that can be used to predict general patterns of human activity". This view is rejected by interpretivists. Max Weber, for example, argues that the method of the natural sciences is inadequate for the social sciences. Instead, more importance is placed on meaning and how people create and maintain their social worlds. The critical methodology in social science is associated with Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. It is based on the assumption that many of the phenomena studied using the other approaches are mere distortions or surface illusions. It seeks to uncover deeper structures of the material world hidden behind these distortions. This approach is often guided by the goal of helping people effect social changes and improvements.[19][86][41]
Philosophy
Philosophical methodology is the
A great variety of methods has been employed throughout the history of philosophy. Methodological skepticism gives special importance to the role of systematic doubt. This way, philosophers try to discover absolutely certain
Many methods in philosophy rely on some form of
Mathematics
In the field of mathematics, various methods can be distinguished, such as synthetic, analytic, deductive, inductive, and heuristic methods. For example, the difference between synthetic and analytic methods is that the former start from the known and proceed to the unknown while the latter seek to find a path from the unknown to the known. Geometry textbooks often proceed using the synthetic method. They start by listing known definitions and axioms and proceed by taking inferential steps, one at a time, until the solution to the initial problem is found. An important advantage of the synthetic method is its clear and short logical exposition. One disadvantage is that it is usually not obvious in the beginning that the steps taken lead to the intended conclusion. This may then come as a surprise to the reader since it is not explained how the mathematician knew in the beginning which steps to take. The analytic method often reflects better how mathematicians actually make their discoveries. For this reason, it is often seen as the better method for teaching mathematics. It starts with the intended conclusion and tries to find another formula from which it can be deduced. It then goes on to apply the same process to this new formula until it has traced back all the way to already proven theorems. The difference between the two methods concerns primarily how mathematicians think and present their proofs. The two are equivalent in the sense that the same proof may be presented either way.[114][115][116]
Statistics
Statistics investigates the analysis, interpretation, and presentation of
Pedagogy
Pedagogy can be defined as the study or
Various influential pedagogical theories have been proposed. Mental-discipline theories were already common in ancient Greek and state that the main goal of teaching is to train intellectual capacities. They are usually based on a certain ideal of the capacities, attitudes, and values possessed by educated people. According to naturalistic theories, there is an inborn natural tendency in children to develop in a certain way. For them, pedagogy is about how to help this process happen by ensuring that the required external conditions are set up.
The choice of which specific method is best to use depends on various factors, such as the subject matter and the learner's age.[122][121] Interest and curiosity on the side of the student are among the key factors of learning success. This means that one important aspect of the chosen teaching method is to ensure that these motivational forces are maintained, through intrinsic or extrinsic motivation.[122] Many forms of education also include regular assessment of the learner's progress, for example, in the form of tests. This helps to ensure that the teaching process is successful and to make adjustments to the chosen method if necessary.[122]
Related concepts
Methodology has several related concepts, such as paradigm and algorithm. In the context of science, a paradigm is a conceptual worldview. It consists of a number of basic concepts and general theories, that determine how the studied phenomena are to be conceptualized and which scientific methods are considered reliable for studying them.[127][22] Various theorists emphasize similar aspects of methodologies, for example, that they shape the general outlook on the studied phenomena and help the researcher see them in a new light.[3][15][16]
In computer science, an algorithm is a procedure or methodology to reach the solution of a problem with a finite number of steps. Each step has to be precisely defined so it can be carried out in an unambiguous manner for each application.[128][129] For example, the Euclidean algorithm is an algorithm that solves the problem of finding the greatest common divisor of two integers. It is based on simple steps like comparing the two numbers and subtracting one from the other.[130]
See also
- Paradigm – Set of distinct concepts or thought patterns
- Philosophical methodology
- Political methodology
- Scientific method
- Software development process
- Survey methodology
References
- ^ ISBN 978-1-4462-9062-0.
- ^ a b "methodology". The American Heritage Dictionary. HarperCollins. Retrieved 20 February 2022.
- ^ .
- ^ ISBN 978-1-4462-9062-0.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-4462-9062-0.
- ^ a b c Mehrten, Arnd (2010). "Methode/Methodologie". In Sandkühler, Hans Jörg (ed.). Enzyklopädie Philosophie. Meiner.
- ^ a b c d Mittelstraß, Jürgen, ed. (2005). "Methode". Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie. Metzler.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Hatfield, Gary (1996). "Scientific method". In Craig, Edward (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
- ^ a b c Mittelstraß, Jürgen, ed. (2005). "Methodologie". Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie. Metzler.
- ^ .
- ^ ISBN 978-1-4833-2149-3.
- ^ Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, W. A. Neilson, T. A. Knott, P. W. Carhart (eds.), G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, MA, 1950. "Methodology Usage Notes", entry at Merriam–Webster
- .
- ^ ISBN 978-1-4462-1012-3.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-4739-0445-3.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Spirkin, Aleksandr Georgievich (1983). "1. Philosophy As A World-View And A Methodology". Dialectical Materialism. Progress Publishers.
- ^ .
- OCLC 908273802.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Garcia, Ginny E.; Poston, Dudley L. (2008). "Methodology". International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
- ISBN 978-3-319-64950-4.
- PMID 28804806.
- ^ a b c Bird, Alexander (2018). "Thomas Kuhn". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 16 July 2022.
- ISBN 978-0-226-45814-4.
- JSTOR 2178175.
- S2CID 170501178.
- S2CID 426843.
- ^ S2CID 211074515.
- S2CID 233835386.
- ISBN 978-0-521-80365-6.
- ^ PMID 9117204.
- ^ OECD (20 March 2013). "3 Measuring subjective well-being". OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. OECD Publishing.
- ^ PMID 31105362.
- OCLC 793207861.
- OCLC 44962443.
- ISBN 978-1-4129-7266-6, retrieved 2020-10-28
- ^ ISBN 978-1-934831-24-3.
- ^ JSTOR 1055084.
- S2CID 42235471.
- PMID 28989188.
- ISBN 978-1-138-82575-8.
- ^ S2CID 207540799.
- ISBN 9780203793206.
- S2CID 199325682.
- ^ ISBN 978-5-01-002582-3.
- S2CID 234945328.
- S2CID 144760415.
- ^ Mittelstraß, Jürgen, ed. (2005). "Methode, induktive". Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie. Metzler.
- ^ Mittelstraß, Jürgen, ed. (2005). "Methode, deduktive". Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie. Metzler.
- ^ Mittelstraß, Jürgen, ed. (2005). "Methode, transzendentale". Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie. Metzler.
- ISBN 978-1-4128-4383-6.
- ISBN 978-5-01-002582-3.
- ISBN 978-1-351-72286-5.
- ^ Kerr, Keith (2007). Sociologogically imagined: The decentering of C. Wright Mills, the postmodern cowboy (PDF). Texas A&M University. p. 5.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-107-54736-0.
- ISBN 978-0-203-87530-8.
- ^ S2CID 10224789.
- ISBN 978-0-86091-646-8.
- ISBN 978-1-4128-3470-4.
- OCLC 2896185.
- ^ a b c "scientific method". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 17 July 2022.
- ^ a b c Hepburn, Brian; Andersen, Hanne (2021). "Scientific Method". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 23 July 2022.
- ^ .
- ISBN 978-84-9745-530-5.
- ^ Boyd, Nora Mills; Bogen, James (2021). "Theory and Observation in Science". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 21 June 2021.
- ^ .
- S2CID 120030170.
- S2CID 121195603.
- S2CID 148236513.
- ^ a b DiFate, Victor. "Evidence". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 11 June 2021.
- ^ a b Crupi, Vincenzo (2021). "Confirmation". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 13 June 2021.
- ^ "hypothetico-deductive method". Oxford Reference. Retrieved 15 June 2021.
- ^ "hypothetico-deductive method". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 15 June 2021.
- S2CID 147343629.
- ^ Thornton, Stephen (2021). "Karl Popper: 4. Basic Statements, Falsifiability and Convention". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 18 July 2022.
- PMID 27909596.
- )
- ISBN 978-1-119-17138-6.
- ^ Marshall, Gordon. "Interview". A Dictionary of Sociology.
- S2CID 143918006.
- S2CID 144894764.
- .
- S2CID 195583226.
- S2CID 142680233.
- ^ "Non-Participant Observation". A Dictionary of Sociology.
- ^ "Observation, Participant". International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
- ^ JSTOR 2635169.
- ^ McKeon, R. "Methodology (Philosophy)". New Catholic Encyclopedia.
- ^ a b c d Sandkühler, Hans Jörg, ed. (2010). "Methode/Methodologie". Enzyklopädie Philosophie. Meiner.
- ISBN 978-1-55111-934-2.
- ISBN 978-0-19-184724-0.
- ^ a b Ichikawa, Jonathan (3 April 2011). "Chris Daly: An Introduction to Philosophical Methods". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
- S2CID 171569977.
- ISBN 978-0-19-966877-9.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-137-34455-7.
- ISSN 0967-2559.
- ^ Goldenbaum, Ursula. "Geometrical Method". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 17 February 2022.
- ISBN 978-0-521-83620-3.
- ^ Cogan, John. "Phenomenological Reduction, The". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
- ^ S2CID 54631297.
- S2CID 148551744.
- ^ Audi, Robert (2006). "Philosophy". Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition. Macmillan.
- ISSN 0031-806X.
- ^ "philosophy of common sense". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
- ^ Parker-Ryan, Sally. "Ordinary Language Philosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
- ^ "ordinary language analysis". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
- ^ Brown, James Robert; Fehige, Yiftach (2019). "Thought Experiments". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
- S2CID 260640180.
- ^ Daniels, Norman (2020). "Reflective Equilibrium". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
- .
- ^ McDermid, Douglas. "Pragmatism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
- JSTOR 2011902.
- ^ Knobe, Joshua; Nichols, Shaun (2017). "Experimental Philosophy". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
- ISBN 978-0-19-993531-4. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
- JSTOR 27957829.
- ^ Mittelstraß, Jürgen, ed. (2005). "Methode, analytische". Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie. Metzler.
- ^ Mittelstraß, Jürgen, ed. (2005). "Methode, synthetische". Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie. Metzler.
- PMID 31274493.
- S2CID 219519804.
- doi:10.18438/B8FW2H.
- ^ ISBN 9781853964534.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-135-71682-0.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Peel, Edwin A. "pedagogy". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 15 August 2022.
- from the original on 12 May 2022. Retrieved 13 May 2022.
- ISBN 978-0-8204-7858-6.
- ^ "Herbartianism". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 20 August 2022.
- ^ a b Kimble, Gregory A. "Learning theory". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 20 August 2022.
- ^ "Thomas S. Kuhn". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 21 August 2022.
- ^ Angius, Nicola; Primiero, Giuseppe; Turner, Raymond (2021). "The Philosophy of Computer Science: 3. Algorithms". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 21 August 2022.
- ^ "Algorithm". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 21 August 2022.
- ^ "Euclidean algorithm". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 21 August 2022.
Further reading
- Berg, Bruce L., 2009, Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Seventh Edition. Boston MA: Pearson Education Inc.
- Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
- Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
- Franklin, M.I. (2012). Understanding Research: Coping with the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide. London and New York: Routledge.
- Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
- Herrman, C. S. (2009). "Fundamentals of Methodology", a series of papers On the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), online.
- Howell, K. E. (2013) Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology. London, UK: Sage Publications.
- Ndira, E. Alana, Slater, T. and Bucknam, A. (2011). Action Research for Business, Nonprofit, and Public Administration - A Tool for Complex Times . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Joubish, Farooq Dr. (2009). Educational Research Department of Education, Federal Urdu University, Karachi, Pakistan
- Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
- Silverman, David (Ed). (2011). Qualitative Research: Issues of Theory, Method and Practice, Third Edition. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications
- Soeters, Joseph; Shields, Patricia and Rietjens, Sebastiaan. 2014. Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies New York: Routledge.
- Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". PLOS Medicine. 2 (8): e124. PMID 16060722.
External links
- Freedictionary, usage note on the word Methodology
- Researcherbook, research methodology forum and resources