Talk:Methodology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.
 

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary?[edit]

The key chunk of this article is about usage of the word methodology. Doesn't seem very suitable.

I agree. It's disappointing to see so little info on the different types of (Research) Methodologies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.1.83 (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sign your reviews[edit]

This article needs to talk about methodology generally and comprehensively. It would also be nice to have some treatment on the usage question between methodology and method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acjelen (talkcontribs)

  • -ology means the study of; so methodology concerns itself with documenting methods rather than employing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.56.130 (talkcontribs)
  • "a particular procedure or set of procedures". [1] I do

Methodology is typically the heading given to a category of research, that is what makes it "the study of" methods. However, it has come to mean more than that for many in academia. I think that both usages can be explored as long as the two usages are delineated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdw79 (talkcontribs) 02:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The first two writers are correct -- methodology is the study of methods (and not a set of methods per se). However, my (1989) copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary notes that 'methodology' is becoming a synonym of 'method'. It is frequently misused this way in scientific papers. My personal, unscientific and entirely subjective impression is that this started in the US, and spread to the UK in the 1980s and 1990s (I recall having an editor correct my own usage in around 2001, lamenting that it was "probably too late to rescue the original meaning"). The 'concept' section of this article seems to be be a result of this confusion, and it seems to contradict the definitions at the top of the page! However, this is clearly an example of English 'evolving', with meaning altering over time, and therefore both meanings should be discussed in the article. 83.80.19.159 (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

methodology[edit]

Isnt methodology jst the process of defining why you chose this specific method, without nessererily comparing it to another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.228.167 (talkcontribs)

Generally speaking; no. This would only be the case when you are creating the methodology that you describing. The describing of the methodology used is to explain to the "examiner" (anyone reading, reviewing, etc.) what the processes, activities, and standards are being used as the basis for what was done.

Another response: The methodology section of a published research paper might give a fairly simple overview of why a method was chosen; however, the methodology of the FIELD of study is much more expansive and does include comparisons of different approaches -- including the ones that have been discarded. A lot of this is implied by the journal and setting. For example, an article "Journal of Meterology" probably won't include a discussion of why computer analysis was used rather than "which direction the cows are facing" -- but you can rest assured that at some point the methodology of the field has addressed whether animal behavior is a reliable predictor of weather. --Ctobola 13:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

This article is riddled with original research. In particular, the entire "Examples" section ought be deleted. 24.126.199.129 04:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - the examples given are not original. They are uncited and vague, which is different. Links need to be given to either the sources or if there are none, to other articles/websites which explain positivism and constructionism in more detail. But it is relevant stuff and shouldn't be deleted. Perhaps it should instead be complemented with an example of a justification of research design, or something like that?

(please sign your comments). I agree with whoever wrote the paragraph directly above. The examples help the reader understand what a methodology is. It sure helped me.   The Transhumanist    07:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

positivism vs constructivism[edit]

The oposition built is way too simplistic, by identifying positism with ontological realism. Besides, the argument it´s "constructed" by a pro-constructivist view --Leontolstoy2 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this Nonsense?[edit]

I think this article might be nonsense. I've read it over and over and I don't understand. There are lot of big words with a tiny idea (or no idea). Someone who understands this (if there is anything to understand) should re-write this using two or three plain-English sentences.

I suspect this is mostly nonsense jargon and pseudo-knowledge. 64.211.58.60 (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because the philosophy of science is too abstract for you to understand doesn't mean it's bunk ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


Actually I don't think Methodology is a BS word. Method + Philosophy = Methodology. Useful sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.250.35 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Designation of Google NGrams to be OR[edit]

Dear Jolaozzo,

I disagree with your designation of a link to google NGrams as original research. As you know, Wikipedia’s prudent policy on original research arose from concerns around verifiability. The information is easily verifiable and published by a reasonable source, There is no issue of verifiability or reliability here.

Furthermore, we have a long standing precedent of linking to queries in authoritative databases. Articles about places, for example, frequently cite to databases on the web and pass in the name of the place. For example, in the article on Chicago, IL, we see citations to online databases where the link passes in data to be queried. For example: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:428803 and http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_NSRD_GCTPL2.US24PR&prodType=table Note that these are not static pages, they are database reports that are created on the fly.

Why is it ok for an article about Chicago to link to a dynamically generated report on Chicago, but it is not ok for an article about Methodology to link to a dynamically generated report about the word Methodology? I don’t see the distinction.

In summary, while I understand your reasoning, I think the OR designation is overly formalistic and inconsistent with both the intent of the OR policy and well established wiki-precedent of linking to live databases.

I will not revert your edit, but I await your response.

Thank you for all of your very extensive efforts on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.211.58.60 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

One difference between your use of the ngram viewer and querying a geographical db is that a) ngram viewer results require interpretation based on knowledge of how Google's ngram works and b) the validity of the results depends very much on how the query is formulated. Any conclusions we make based on such queries will necessarily involve OR. To make statements about word frequency we need to have sources that make those statements not raw statistics that support them. Jojalozzo 02:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Neither of these points distinguishes Google Ngrams from citations to other databases.
Point (a) is wrong. An understanding of how Google Ngrams works is not required to use or understand the site. It shows a graph of word use frequency. It is just a graph and is very easy to understand. It is easier to understand then many of the other databases to which Wikipedia frequently links.
Point (b) applies to all databases. Validity of the results always depends on how the query is formulated.
If a conclusion is drawn, then the problem is the sentence, not the citation. I agree that Wikipedia should not draw conclusions, but citing verifiable raw statistics is something that Wikipedia does millions of times.
Also, after doing some searching, I’ve found other Wikipedia articles that cite Google Ngrams to show trends of word use, just as this article does. 64.211.58.60 (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
You have not persuaded me (especially see Other stuff exists). Users of Google ngram results must understand the database, how it was created and maintained, how queries are formulated, how to interpret results like .002% vs. .02%. This is very different from a database that gives us a well-formatted, unambiguous text report about Chicago. We need a source that uses data as Google ngrams to form conclusions about word use. We cannot make statements of our own based on such results. If you are intent on pursuing this, please ask for input at WP:Reliable sources/noticeboard (and leave a notice here if you do so). I'll go along with the consensus there. Jojalozzo 15:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, It looks like this was already covered on WP:Reliable sources/noticeboard. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_111 . Your position is favored. The distinction between this database and the chicago database are still lost on me. The query and the data of google nGrams are both way simpler. The query is a word. The user looks at a brightly colored line that goes up or down. Understanding the mechanics of how the data is gathered for Ngrams (book scanning) is no more important then understanding how the data is gathered for geographic databases (presumeably GPS and land surveying equipment). A 6 year old could use and understand google Ngrams but would be lost on some of these GIS databases. Anyhow, I consider the matter closed now and I thank you for your time.
Best Regards, 64.211.58.60 (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Munda (kudi ਨੂੰ} :---- , ਸੋਹਣਿਓ ਕੀ ਹਾਲ ਹੈ , ਸਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ ਵੀ ਆ ਜਾਇਆ ਕਰੋ . .... . . . . KuDi : ਮੈਂ ਜੁੱਤੀ ਲਾਵਾਂ ..!!! Munda : ਇੱਦਾਂ ਹੀ ਆ ਜਾਓ , ਅਸੀਂ ਕਿਹੜਾ ਪਾਠ ਰਖਾਇਆ.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.255.246.103 (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There has to be another article on 'Research Methodology'[edit]

As research methodology is different from methodology, it will be appropriate if another article named research methodology will be created. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

common false usage[edit]

I notice in debates, both verbal and written, people frequently use the term methodology, when they mean a method that has been or would be used. Anybody else experienced that as well? Perhaps it should be worked into the article. --197.228.43.88 (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Probably dealt with as "Methodology and method are not interchangeable. In recent years however, there has been a tendency to use methodology as a "pretentious substitute for the word method".[7][not in citation given] Using methodology as a synonym for method or set of methods leads to confusion and misinterpretation and undermines the proper analysis that should go into designing research" bottom of the second paragraph. Feel free to develop it. Ex nihil (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)