Learning Connection
Achieving a methodological approach which is consonant with one’s own values and concerns typically involves the longest struggle in research work and the deepest kinds of engagement’ (Salmon, 1992:77).
Methods – 'the techniques or procedures used to gather and analyse data related to some research question or hypothesis' (Crotty, 1998:3)
Methodology – 'the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods, and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes' (Crotty, 1998:3). This includes not only the practical aspects of the research such as method and action plan, but also the philosophical and theoretical perspectives of the researcher.
Research design – The research plan that is devised to obtain answers to the research questions. The research design can encompass the research aims, hypotheses or questions, the methodology, methods of data collection, and the strategies used to analyse the data. The research design tells the reader what you did, how you did it, and why you did it in this way.
Theory – general propositions used to explain a class of phenomenon (The Macquarie Dictionary 1991).
Philosophy – the study of the truths underlying knowledge and being, or reality (The Macquarie Dictionary 1991).
Epistemology – the branch of philosophy which investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge (The Macquarie Dictionary 1991).
Ontology – the branch of metaphysics that investigates the nature of being and of the first principles or categories involved (The Macquarie Dictionary 1991).
Social philosophy – Conceptual philosophy of society, social action and individual involvement with society. Social philosophy is interdisciplinary informing the social sciences including anthropology, sociology, human geography, literary theory, mass communications, philosophy, economics, history, political philosophy, the philosophy of law, and theology (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 1999).
Modern social philosophy – Social philosophy that emerged from classical nineteenth century social philosophy (Wikipedia).
Postmodern social philosophy – A complex set of reactions to modern philosophy. There is disagreement within postmodern social philosophy about what constitutes the presuppositions of modern philosophy, and the philosophers that epitomise it. There is agreement in rejection of foundationalism, essentialism and realism (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 1999).
Foundationalism – the view that knowledge has a two tier structure in which one is non-inferential or foundational and forms the basis of inferential knowledge (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 1999).
Essentialism – a metaphysical theory that objects have essences and that there is a distinction between essential and non-essential or accidental predications (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 1999).
Realism – interest in or concern for the actual or real as distinguished from the abstract, speculative, etc (The Macquarie Dictionary 1991).
For further clarification of terms please visit the RESA online methodology workshop.
This series of web pages and audio streams is designed for students researching social, cultural, environmental or economic conditions in areas such as the social sciences, humanities, arts, education, health, business and social policy. This series of resources supports the core RESA face to face workshop series Methodology in business, social sciences and humanities.
The resources in this series draw upon the philosophy of the social sciences. Social philosophy is the study of the logic or methods of the social sciences (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 1999). Social philosophy can be defined by the questions it asks. These include:
The subject matter of social philosophy can also be understood in terms of more general philosophical questions. Hart (1998:86) provides a useful outline of the philosophical questions underpinning social philosophy:
What is reality? Ontological issues are concerned with what we believe to exist and what we believe we can investigate. For example, what is the subject-matter of disciplines like psychology, sociology, economics ('society', 'class', 'economy', 'individual', 'mind')? Do these things really exist? Are there real spatiotemporal objects that exist independently of the concepts and language with which we understand them?
How do we come to know things? Epistemological issues are concerned with how we come to know about ourselves and our world. For example, can knowledge only be gained through the senses via experimentation and an observation of 'facts'. Or, do we produce knowledge; does knowledge ultimately arise in human experience and interaction with the objects in our world? Or, perhaps this idea is itself the product of a specific time period and culture?
What research process will ensure valid knowledge? Methodological issues are concerned with the grounds upon which we wish to claim to have produced 'valid' knowledge. For example, should we validate our knowledge on the basis of observable or quantifiable phenomenon? Is it important that our research participants agree with our research claims? Should we base our research claims on theory, or should we eschew theory?
What is the role of values and ethics? Axiological issues are concerned with the nature of value and with what kinds of things have value. For example, what is good, beautiful, ethical, moral? What is ultimately worthwhile for its own sake? Are values absolute, subjective or culturally relative?
What are reliable techniques for collecting data about claims? Data-collection issues are concerned with the techniques used to collect data. For example, should I use a survey questionnaire, in-depth interviews, document analysis or an observational case study? Is quantitative data better than qualitative data because it is more 'objective'?
What is the language of research? Rhetorical issues are concerned with how we talk about and write up research. For example, is writing in the third person more 'objective' than the first person? Am I reporting findings, or offering a series of reflections?
This series of web resources is designed to provide a broad overview of the debates, and the similarities and differences, between different philosophical perspectives on social philosophical questions.
The term methodology in this resource refers to the philosophical assumptions that underpin different approaches to social research. We will not cover methods, or the manifestations of different approaches within specific fields of knowledge. For more information about structured support in developing specific methods, and field based theoretical applications and debates, please see the research design web links on this site and division, centre and school based resources and research forums.
The topics covered in the series are organised around the different ways of answering the questions posed within social philosophy. Topics include: positivism, empiricism, phenomenology, constructionism, interpretivism, hermeneutics and critical theory, feminisms, structuralism, post structuralism, deconstruction and post colonialism.
One of the aims of this series of resources is to support the development of a clear methodological focus. By methodological focus is meant the kind of knowledge the research aims to produce. That is, will the research attempt to find out about:
What assumptions inform the choice of research focus, and how is it justified philosophically? What critiques have these different research foci been subjected to, and where do you stand within these debates? How will you articulate the implications of your findings? This series of resources aims to support beginning researchers in thinking through these questions.
The course is not designed to support a specific aspect of research writing, and it is not mandatory that research students write about social philosophy within a separate chapter of the thesis.
The aim of the series is to support you to become aware enough of methodology to:
The series of resources also aims to stimulate an appreciation of the complexity and value of the range of approaches within social philosophy. This is based on the understanding that scholarship involves both critical engagement and respect for the intellectual labours of those who have brought us to where we stand today. Being clear about philosophical or methodological orientation enables a self aware engagement in scholarly debate. An awareness of the complexity of the issues involved can lead to greater intellectual tolerance and an appreciation of the value that the different approaches have to offer. Philosophical awareness can also help researchers to evolve beyond a common sense approach to research problems, and to read, write and think at a more conceptual level.
Students will maximise the benefit of the resources by working through them in a systematic manner. The audio streams are designed to follow the web pages, and each workshop builds on the content covered in the preceding workshops. The different methodological approaches discussed in these resources are best pictured as overlapping concentric circles, rather than as stand alone, discrete pillars. There are significant areas of overlap between the different approaches, yet each also has its own distinctive logic. Concepts within social philosophy have arisen in a dialogue among social thinkers and the central ideas are only intelligible in relation to one another. It is difficult to learn about one approach without learning about at least some of the others. At the same time, although there is much that social philosophers agree about, it is difficult to ‘combine’ approaches. This is because the approaches contain conceptually incompatible ideas.
A brief overview of major methodological approaches is provided below. Each approach will be considered at greater length in the corresponding web page and audio stream for that topic.
The research abstracts below are designed to show how different methodological approaches lead to different questions and recommendations on a similar topic. The topic or problem space that each is concerned with is the role of urban planners in the management of the urban landscape.
When reading the different approaches you might consider the
following questions:
1. What methodological assumptions are reflected in each approach?
3. What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of each approach?
The limitations of existing transport models are widely accepted. A modelling system is needed that can predict future scenarios for use by planners and analysts to understand complex systems and the likely impact of their policies and decisions. This is critical if planning decisions are to be made in an informed, intelligent and structured manner, rather than on the basis of ignorance or any variety of political influences. The problem with structured searches of complex systems is that they draw upon deterministic relationships between the input parameters and the final results, whereas in reality no simple algorithmic solution exists. A broad genetic algorithm that can factor in probability is one of the techniques available to obtain a solution. It is necessary to have a model that is aware of factors that are controllable so that recommendations can be made that are within our power to implement. Some of the factors tested include: population and urban sprawl, road supply and congestion, taxes, fuel prices, public transport availability and fares, decentralised versus centralised workplaces, flexible working hours, road speeds, road deaths, economic climate and cost of living, and the number of cars per household and vehicle usage. The mechanism developed by the genetic algorithm can inform us of: the factors that require manipulation (eg fuel prices); by what degree (eg 23%); and in which direction (eg increased) so as to bring about some defined 'preferred future' (we will not enter into the philosophical question as to who constructs these preferred futures); where desirable levels of given factors have been nominated (eg congestion, road deaths, pollution, etc); for some specified time in the future.
Adapted from Chamber, L and Taylor, M 1992, ’A new modelling paradigm for strategic planning’, paper presented at the 17th Australian Transport Research Forum.
City planning and the dominance of the private automobile is neither ‘scientific’, ‘rational’ nor ‘economic’. Capitalist interests ensure that cities are organised in ways that prioritise the transportation of workers from home to work in order to sell their labour power. The dominance of the car within the urban landscape is also caused by pressure upon public agencies by oil and automobile companies. Capitalist ideology also acts to instil the value of private property ownership, rather than the social redistribution of wealth in society. Some solutions, beyond total social revolution and redistribution of social capital, are public provision of public transport to ensure equity, economy, safety, and minimisation of environmental damage. Employers should contribute to the social costs of transporting workers to their place of employment, and workers and consumers need to organise into effective lobby groups.
Adapted from Frank, H 1986, ‘Mass transport and class struggle’, in Transport sociology: social aspects of transport planning, ed E DeBoer, Pergamon Press, Great Britain.
Strategies to address the problem of increased growth in motor vehicle travel has tended to revolve around technological and structural solutions related to the built environment and transport infrastructure. The research has not given sufficient consideration to the social and cultural determinants of private car use. In particular, existing research has failed to recognise that transport use is gendered, and that women (and men) are active participants in the creation of transport choices. Much of the literature is male-biased and views women as a group for whom the private automobile is relatively unimportant. Women's use of public transport is viewed as a form of ‘disadvantage’. This study conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with 10 women. We found that non-work-related trips are more important for women who are more likely to make linked trips (dropping off children, picking up shopping) than men. Women are also more likely than men to travel out of peak hours and to make local, weekend, and intra-suburban trips. While the availability of transport does operate as a constraint, women utilise a diversity of travel options experiencing both the private car and public transport positively. Transport, and in particular the motor vehicle, enables women to meet their expectations of themselves as wives, mothers and workers. It is important that women's use of the motor vehicle and women's mobility is not forgotten or placed in question within planning geared to reduce car use, traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. What is needed is a combination of more conventional strategies with an understanding of the diverse cultural influences that are brought to bear upon transport choices.
Adapted from Dowling, R, Gollner, A and O’Dwyer, B 1999, ‘A gender perspective on urban car use: a qualitative case study’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 101-110.
The dominance of the private automobile cannot be understood simply as the result of economic ‘interests’ prevailing over other public concerns such as health, safety and aesthetics. Nor is the organisation of urban space a neutral outcome of technological progress. It was the result of a political contest about the ‘rational’ and ‘economic’ use of urban space, the best interests of the population, and the ‘freedom of the individual’; a contest in which the values of urban aesthetics, and public health and safety have often been integral. Since the early nineteenth century, the street has gradually transformed from a space of diverse activity (meeting, playing, socialising, promenading, hawking, gambling, trading) to a space of circulation. This was accomplished via the rise of an understanding of travel as optimally an ‘economic use of time’. Within urban planning and engineering discourse ‘transport’ has become dominant. It is a concept that privileges the ‘economic’ journey, or the journey from A to B. The new framing of the city has not brought more freedom to urban travellers. Urban travellers are more disciplined and regulated than ever before. Movement within public space is strictly confined within defined routes and spaces that privilege and normalise the private motor vehicle over other modes of travel and other uses of urban space. Urban planners have not been neutral within this process, but are powerful political actors shaping the field of possible actions via pronouncements about the ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’ ordering of urban space. The answer is not simply better cleaner cars, more efficient traffic regulation and infrastructure, public transport, or employer accountability for the costs of transport. What is needed is a subversion of the ‘economic journey’ to enable a more diverse set of purposes for the travelling subject and the urban environment. We need ways of thinking about travel, our freedom and the city that open possibilities beyond the need to discipline the travelling public to move from A to B in an efficient, clean, safe and speedy manner.
Adapted from Bonham, J 2002, ‘Safety and speed: ordering the street of transport’, PhD thesis, University of Adelaide and Ferretti, D and Bonham, J 201, ‘Travel blending: wither regulation?’, Australian Geographical Studies, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 302-312.
Below, please find some methodological assumptions, and strengths and weaknesses, that have been highlighted for each perspective above in workshops conducted on this topic.
Methodological assumptions –
Strengths and weaknesses?
This approach offers solutions based on carefully collected, broad based empirical evidence. However, it departs from existing conditions, categories and questions without considering alternatives or objections to existing arrangements. There is also a tendency to rely upon technologically driven solutions rather than changes in the way transport resources are distributed. The results cannot tell us about the usefulness of alternatives to the private automobile, public transport and centralised transport systems. Nor does it offer an analysis of the political forces that have led to the current organisation of transport, or the kinds of social (non-technological changes) required to improve transport outcomes.
Methodological assumptions –
Strengths and weaknesses?
This approach is sensitive to, and offers explanations and alternatives to unequal social outcomes. However, economic 'interests', understood as a unified and empirically grounded experience, are the sole focus of critique. The analysis enables questions to be asked about who benefits and who pays for urban transport, but it does not consider the role played by wider social actors in determining transport outcomes.
Methodological assumptions –
Strengths and weaknesses?
This approach is sensitive to the voices and perspectives of different groups on the ground, but does not consider the cultural preconditions for those experiences. For instance, it recognises that women have different experiences and needs, but generalises about women as a single category of person with a shared experience without considering the way that cultural norms about gender shape perception.
Methodological assumptions –
Strengths and weaknesses?
The approach enables a critique of political factors beyond employers and capital such as urban planning discourse and its effect on the city. This opens ways of thinking about our cities as places where activities other than the speedy or economic journey might take place. The approach offers convincing accounts of social outcomes grounded in careful empirical work rather than theory about social structure, but is ultimately delimited by the narratives that inform the critique.
This web page has introduced some key philosophical terms, the aims of this series of web resources, and the philosophical assumptions underpinning the methodological approaches that will be covered in the next topics. Please listen to the audio stream for this web page before moving on to the next topic.
Crotty, M 1998, The Foundations of Social Research, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
Hart, C 1998, Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination, Sage, London.
Discussion 1 - Introduction to methodology
If this recording does not play back in your web browser, download and save the file to play in your default media player. To save this file right-click the link and select Save Target As (or Save Link As) from the pop up menu.
Alternatively you can subscribe to a podcast of the entire discussion series as they become available.
This web resource was developed by Wendy Bastalich
