Methodology, Method, and Technique in Social Research: A Comprehensive Guide
Methodology, Method, and Technique in Social Research
Understanding the Concepts
Methodology (target = through, so, after hearing = path, way; logos = theory, reason, knowledge) is the theory about the method or combination of methods. It is normative (value-based) but can be descriptive (sets) or comparative (analyzes). Methodology also examines the conduct of research and the techniques used.
Grzegorczyk, in his book “Towards a Methodological Synthesis of Knowledge,” states, “the essence of knowledge lies beyond the scope of the methodology.” He further notes, “In some sciences, the most satisfying curiosity comes through observation and experimentation, while understanding the desire to find satisfaction in the theory” (Grzegorczyk, 1967, p. 5).
This reference highlights the need for consistency between the method (the “how”) used and the theory that provides the framework for the knowledge sought, or the content (the “what”).
Clearly, theory and, as discussed below, the methods generally involve an ideological choice, not in a generic sense, but an approach based on a coherent system of ideas that tell us the “why” of the investigation.
In simple terms, this means that research always has an implicit goal that is occasionally made explicit by the researcher. In some investigations, the researcher’s role in society is questioned, referring to their identification with a problem and therefore the approach dealing with the question of “why” and “for whom.”
The Method: A Deeper Dive
A method definition is found in Mendieta Alatorre (1973, p. 31): “Method is the way or means to an end, the orderly way of doing something, how to act and proceed to achieve a specific objective.”
Grawitz Madeleine provides a series of more comprehensive method definitions in other books on the subject (Grawitz, 1975, Volume 1, pp. 290-291):
- Method, in the philosophical sense, “comprises all intellectual operations by which a discipline is to attain truths pursued, the shows and check” (Method in the general sense of logical procedure).
- Method as a concrete attitude in relation to the object, especially dictates specific ways to focus and organize the research, but this is more or less imperative, more or less accurate, complete, and systematic” (e.g., experimental method, clinical method).
- Method linked to an attempt to explain, “is linked more or less to a philosophical position (… and) primarily pursues an explanatory scheme that may be more or less comprehensive and placed in a very different level of depth” (e.g., dialectical method is empirical and involves specific comments, the structural method, etc.).
- Method related to a particular domain, “applies to a specific area and is a way forward that is proper (the historical method, the psychoanalytic method, and some, are also linked to a conception of the whole psychology or society…).”
Theory defines the “what,” while the problems of the methods relate to content, but otherwise, give an answer to the question “how” (Grawitz, Volume I, p. 291).
Operationally, in the positivist sense, we can formulate the concept and method: The method (in social research) is a set of strategies and procedures concerning:
- The definition of concepts, conceptualization
- Verification of hypothesis
- Optimizing objectivity (validity and reliability)
- The selection of techniques and tools that make explicit the researcher’s approach to achieve knowledge about aspects of social reality.
The method in social research can be defined as the strategy (possibly including procedures) used for data acquisition of knowledge and information about social reality. The research method depends on the history of science itself.
That is, until the conceptualization of “method” depends on the current range which includes the researcher, as well as the theoretical framework and problem handling (located in a social field) to investigate.
The Importance of Techniques
It is customary, in the textbooks of social research methods and techniques, to confuse social research. As the technique is most of the working method, it is understandable that these authors (especially those of positivism and structural-functionalism, which make up the majority of textbooks from the cultural field of EE. UU.) focus their interest almost exclusively in collecting reliable quantitative data and do not show much interest in other methodological aspects.
Techniques “are strict operating procedures, well-defined diseases, which may be applied again under the same conditions and adapted to the kind of problem and the phenomenon in question… The choice of these depends on the objective pursued, which will be linked to the method of work” (Grawitz, Volume 1, p. 291).
About the difference between method and technique, Grawitz said on the same page as follows: “… The technique is limited operational stages, together with some practical elements, concrete, adapted to a definite end, while the method is a conception intellectual coordinates a set of operations and, in general, different techniques.
For a good research work, it is not enough to use a precise technique; it is not sufficient to clarify the methodological issues. It also needs a clear theoretical framework and conceptualization of the relevant problems that need to be investigated.