Talk:Methodology/Archives/2023/October

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary?
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)

I disagree. Too many people these days mis-use the word, and they wrongly think it is the same as 'method'. It's about setting things straight, and ensure everyone knows right from wrong. So the important thing is firstly - definition of the word 'methodology'. However, definition is one thing. But it is true that Wikipedia pages (not just about 'methodology' but everywhere in general) are often missing something crucial - namely very clear examples. Simple (actual) examples of generating 'methodology' (to be provided as web-links etc) could be advantageous - used as a guide. That would make everything crystal clear. One thing we know for sure is - the word 'methodology' is not a synonym for 'method' - because appending 'ology' to the word 'method' cannot possibly have the same meaning as 'method' (itself). KorgBoy (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sign your reviews
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 (talk • contribs)
 * -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 (talk • contribs)
 * "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 (talk • contribs) 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)


 * It can't possibly be a synonym for 'method', because the base word in 'methodology' is method. So as soon as one puts 'ology' on the end of method, then the two words 'method' and 'methodology' cannot even remotely mean the same thing, and especially cannot be synonyms. And any dictionary or thesaurus are clearly mistaken if they suggest the two words are synonyms. KorgBoy (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say english 'evolving'. I would say the word 'methodology' is being corrupted by ignorant or careless people. I totally agree that methodology is the fine understanding of methods (within some category) such that the various methods (within some category) can be compared, assessed, weighed against each other. This means - the literature review section can list or identify or describe known methods that might be relevant or become relevant to the work. While later, the methodology section can be used to discuss finer details of the methods - and compare their features and qualities against the other ones. Doing all this at least allows the author to show that they have put in some significant effort into understanding the various methods that might be relevant or useful to their work. For example, somebody needs to measure something. What methods are there to accomplish the measurement? There may be various known approaches (techniques/methods) existing in the literature. That goes into the literature review. Some details about those methods can be placed in the literature review. Then, later, in the methodology section, it's time to show some finer understanding about each method. Is one better than another? Is one more or less the same in capability? Methodology shows readers or examiners that the author has at least put in some hard yards into studying and understanding relevant (or potentially relevant) techniques. KorgBoy (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

methodology
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 (talk • contribs)

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)


 * A methodology (the 'study of' methods) can generally lead to the presentation of a new method (or a variation or improvement of an existing method). A method can involve various sub-methods. Whatever is the case - when we present new work involving new methods, or an improvement of existing methods, or even involving existing methods - then a literature review is generally done - that tells people of existing work that is directly or closely related to the new work to be presented. The new work will usually involve 'methods'. Some methods used in the new work may already be existing. For such a case, the 'methodology' section can be broken up into sections that not only mentions various existing methods - all of which are 'methods' that achieve more or less the same result, but also describes those methods in great detail. However, one method may be more efficient than another. Or some methods may be equally effective. Or one method may be much more costly but highly accurate, while one may be cheaper to implement with less accuracy. Or one may be both inexpensive and highly accurate. So the various related existing 'optional' methods need to be gathered and discussed - and the writer must demonstrate adequate understanding of those particular existing methods, and also should make comparisons of the advantages and disadvantages within each method themselves, and making comparisons of strengths and weaknesses between methods - ie. pitting one method against another. This is the methodology. A stating of various related methods within a category, and demonstrating a high level of understanding of each of those methods, and making comparisons between those related methods. This then allows the writer or worker to state a reason for choosing a particular method (or sub-method) that they will use in their own work. Otherwise, if the writer is going to present a new method, or an improved method, then the methodology section will contain adequate material that justifies the development or presentation of the new work (the new method). Yes - a methodology is not a synonym for 'method' or 'procedure' - because the base word in methodology is 'method'. KorgBoy (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

positivism vs constructivism
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?
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)


 * Correction - that would have been 'methodosophy' or 'methosophy' ... not methodology. KorgBoy (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Designation of Google NGrams to be OR
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.  Joja  lozzo  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. Joja  lozzo  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'
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
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. E x nihil  (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I do like the description "pretentious substitute for the word method". I would also like "uneducated and incorrect substitute for the word method", because the base word in 'methodology' is 'method'. So those two particular words cannot possibly be synomyms. KorgBoy (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing
Hi all, I've had a few encounters with methodology and am doing my best to distil this information in edits to this page, please do bear with me! Hopefully can build upon what is here Jamzze (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Plain English
I hope that can reach consensus. The reader should not have to scroll all the way down to the Definitions section before getting a plain English answer to the etymologically obvious question: Is method-ology the study of methods? The Kara, Gergen & Gergen definition is apparently provided in two non-open-access books, but it requires the reader to puzzle about ''What is a framework? What is a scheme? Are the choices that researchers make their choices of the methods that they use, or do they include choices about things like which university/institute they apply for jobs at, whether they prefer coffee, tea or neither, what journal they publish in? Or are these Shakespearean choices like "To be or not be"? Does a researcher choosing "to be or not to be" affect the methods used?'' Abstraction is fine, but when etymology matches meaning, let's keep things simple, please. :) Boud (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The "preface" has now become too long
The "preface" has now become as long as an article. It is time to move the main statements of this "preface" to the actual corpus of the article. Sarah Rubin (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for pointing this out. I've tried to reduce it to a more managable length. The lead of this article only summarizes material already found in the body of the article. This makes it easier since we do not need to move any statements around. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Phlsph7, thank you for reducing text and also for this helpful information. Sarah Rubin (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)