Editing Methodology

{{short description|Study of research methods}}
{{distinguish|Methodism (disambiguation){{!}}Methodism}}
{{Research}}
In its most common sense, '''methodology''' is the study of [[research]] methods. However, the term can also refer to the methods themselves or to the [[philosophical]] discussion of associated background assumptions. A method is a structured procedure for bringing about a certain goal, like acquiring [[knowledge]] or verifying knowledge claims. This normally involves various steps, like choosing a [[Sample (statistics)|sample]], [[Data collection|collecting data]] from this sample, and interpreting the data. The study of methods concerns a detailed description and analysis of these processes. It includes evaluative aspects by comparing different methods. This way, it is assessed what advantages and disadvantages they have and for what research goals they may be used. These descriptions and evaluations depend on philosophical background assumptions. Examples are how to [[concept]]ualize the studied phenomena and what constitutes [[evidence]] for or against them. When understood in the widest sense, methodology also includes the discussion of these more abstract issues.

Methodologies are traditionally divided into [[Quantitative research|quantitative]] and [[qualitative research]]. Quantitative research is the main methodology of the [[natural science]]s. It uses precise numerical [[measurement]]s. Its goal is usually to find universal laws used to make [[prediction]]s 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 [[social science]]s and gives less prominence to exact numerical measurements. It aims more at an in-depth understanding of the meaning of the studied phenomena and less at universal and predictive laws. Common methods found in the social sciences are [[Survey methodology|surveys]], [[Interview (research)|interviews]], [[focus groups]], and the [[nominal group technique]]. They differ from each other concerning their sample size, the types of questions asked, and the general setting. In recent decades, many social scientists have started using [[mixed-methods research]], which combines quantitative and qualitative methodologies.

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 [[freedom]] and [[creativity]] of researchers. Methodologists often respond to these objections by claiming that a good methodology helps researchers arrive at reliable theories in an efficient way. The choice of method often matters since the same factual material can lead to different conclusions depending on one's method. Interest in methodology has risen in the 20th century due to the increased importance of [[interdisciplinary]] work and the obstacles hindering efficient cooperation.

== 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 [[philosophical]] discussions of background assumptions involved in these processes.<ref name="Howell2012-Preface">{{cite book |last1=Howell |first1=Kerry E. |title=An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology |date=13 November 2012 |publisher=SAGE |isbn=978-1-4462-9062-0 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uYkRAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT10 |language=en |chapter=Preface}}</ref><ref name="AHD-Methodology">{{cite web |title=methodology |url=https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=methodology |website=The American Heritage Dictionary |publisher=HarperCollins |access-date=20 February 2022}}</ref><ref name="Herrman2009">{{cite journal |last1=Herrman |first1=C. S. |title=Fundamentals of Methodology - Part I: Definitions and First Principles |journal=SSRN Electronic Journal |date=2009 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.1373976}}</ref> Some researchers distinguish methods from methodologies by holding that methods are modes of [[data collection]] while methodologies are more general research strategies that determine how to conduct a research project.<ref name="Howell2012-Preface"/><ref name="Howell2012-13"/> In this sense, methodologies include various theoretical commitments about the intended outcomes of the investigation.<ref name="Howell2012-1">{{cite book |last1=Howell |first1=Kerry E. |title=An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology |date=13 November 2012 |publisher=SAGE |isbn=978-1-4462-9062-0 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uYkRAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT12 |language=en |chapter=1. Introduction: Problems Identified}}</ref>

=== 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.<ref name="Mehrten2010"/><ref name="MetzlerMethode"/><ref name="Hatfield1996"/> It is a planned and structured procedure for [[Problem solving|solving a theoretical or practical problem]]. In this regard, methods stand in contrast to free and unstructured approaches to problem-solving.<ref name="MetzlerMethode"/> For example, [[descriptive statistics]] is a method of [[data analysis]], [[radiocarbon dating]] is a method of determining the age of organic objects, [[sautéing]] is a method of cooking, and [[project-based learning]] is an [[educational]] method. The term "technique" is often used as a synonym both in the academic and the everyday discourse. Methods usually involve a clearly defined series of decisions and [[Action (philosophy)|actions]] to be used under certain circumstances, usually expressable as a sequence of repeatable instructions. The goal of following the steps of a method is to bring about the result promised by it. In the context of inquiry, methods may be defined as systems of rules and procedures to discover regularities of [[nature]], [[society]], and [[thought]].<ref name="Mehrten2010"/><ref name="MetzlerMethode">{{cite book |editor1-last=Mittelstraß |editor1-first=Jürgen |title=Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie |date=2005 |publisher=Metzler |url=https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783476021083 |chapter=Methode}}</ref> In this sense, methodology can refer to procedures used to arrive at new [[knowledge]] or to techniques of verifying and falsifying pre-existing knowledge claims.<ref name="MetzlerMethodologie"/> This encompasses various issues pertaining both to the collection of data and their analysis. Concerning the collection, it involves the problem of [[Sampling (statistics)|sampling]] and of how to go about the data collection itself, like surveys, interviews, or observation. There are also numerous methods of how the collected data can be analyzed using statistics or other ways of interpreting it to extract interesting conclusions.<ref name="Bryman2008"/>

=== As study of methods ===
However, many theorists emphasize the differences between the terms "method" and "methodology".<ref name="Howell2012-Preface"/><ref name="MetzlerMethode"/><ref name="AHD-Methodology"/><ref name="Schwandt2014"/> In this regard, methodology may be defined as "the study or description of methods" or as "the [[analysis]] of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline".<ref name="merrian-webster">''Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged'', W.&nbsp;A. Neilson, T.&nbsp;A. Knott, P.&nbsp;W. Carhart (eds.), G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, MA, 1950. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology "Methodology Usage Notes"], entry at [[Webster's Dictionary|Merriam–Webster]]</ref><ref name="Baskerville1991">{{cite journal|last1=Baskerville|first1=R.|year=1991|title=Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge|journal=Computers & Security|volume=10|issue=8|pages=749–764|doi=10.1016/0167-4048(91)90094-T}}</ref> This study or analysis involves uncovering assumptions and practices associated with the different methods and a detailed description of [[research design]]s and [[hypothesis testing]]. It also includes evaluative aspects: forms of data collection, measurement strategies, and ways to analyze data are compared and their advantages and disadvantages relative to different research goals and situations are assessed. In this regard, methodology provides the [[skill]]s, knowledge, and practical guidance needed to conduct scientific research in an efficient manner. It acts as a guideline for various decisions researchers need to take in the scientific process.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref name="Bryman2008"/>

Methodology can be understood as the middle ground between concrete particular methods and the abstract and general issues discussed by the [[philosophy of science]].<ref name="Schwandt2014">{{cite book |last1=Schwandt |first1=Thomas A. |title=The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry |date=19 December 2014 |publisher=SAGE Publications |isbn=978-1-4833-2149-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OEgoBgAAQBAJ |language=en |chapter=Methodology}}</ref><ref name="Mills2014"/> 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.<ref name="Mills2014">{{cite book |last1=Mills |first1=Jane |last2=Birks |first2=Melanie |title=Qualitative Methodology: A Practical Guide |date=20 January 2014 |publisher=SAGE |isbn=978-1-4739-0445-3 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TbX3AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT62 |language=en |chapter=3. Methodology and Methods}}</ref><ref name="Schwandt2014"/>

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".<ref name="Spirkin1983"/><ref name="Oduor2010"/> 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".<ref>{{Cite book|last=Kara |first=Helen |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/908273802|title=Creative research methods in the social sciences: a practical guide|publisher=Policy Press|others=Gergen, Kenneth J., Gergen, Mary M. |year=2015 |isbn=978-1-4473-1627-5 |location=Bristol|page=4 |oclc=908273802}}</ref> 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 [[concept]]ual 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.<ref name="Garcia2008"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Garcia-Alexander |first1=Ginny |last2=Woo |first2=Hyeyoung |last3=Carlson |first3=Matthew J. |title=Social Foundations of Behavior for the Health Sciences |date=3 November 2017 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3-319-64950-4 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y-M8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA17 |language=en |chapter=2. Social Research Methods}}</ref>

=== 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.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref name="Schwandt2014"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rocca |first1=Elena |last2=Andersen |first2=Fredrik |title=How biological background assumptions influence scientific risk evaluation of stacked genetically modified plants: an analysis of research hypotheses and argumentations |journal=Life Sciences, Society and Policy |date=14 August 2017 |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=11 |doi=10.1186/s40504-017-0057-7 |pmid=28804806 |pmc=5554775 |issn=2195-7819 |doi-access=free }}</ref> For example, [[Thomas Kuhn]] argues in his ''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'' that sciences operate within a framework or a [[paradigm]] that determines which questions are asked and what counts as good science. This concerns philosophical disagreements both about how to conceptualize the phenomena studied, what constitutes [[evidence]] for and against them, and what the general goal of researching them is.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref name="Bird2018">{{cite web |last1=Bird |first1=Alexander |title=Thomas Kuhn |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/#ConcPara |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=16 July 2022 |date=2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Kuhn |first1=Thomas S. |title=The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition |date=18 April 2012 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-45814-4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3eP5Y_OOuzwC |language=en}}</ref> So in this wider sense, methodology overlaps with philosophy by making these assumptions explicit and presenting arguments for and against them.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/> According to C. S. Herrman, a good methodology clarifies the structure of the data to be analyzed and helps the researchers see the phenomena in a new light. In this regard, a methodology is similar to a paradigm.<ref name="Herrman2009"/><ref name="Mills2014"/> A similar view is defended by Spirkin, who holds that a central aspect of every methodology is the [[world view]] that comes with it.<ref name="Spirkin1983"/>

The discussion of background assumptions can include [[metaphysical]] and [[ontological]] issues in cases where they have important implications for the proper research methodology. For example, a [[Philosophical realism|realist]] perspective considering the observed phenomena as an external and independent [[reality]] is often associated with an emphasis on empirical data collection and a more distanced and objective attitude. [[Idealism|Idealists]], on the other hand, hold that external reality is not fully independent of the [[mind]] and tend, therefore, to include more subjective tendencies in the research process as well.<ref name="Howell2012-1"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tawney |first1=G. A. |title=Methodological Realism |journal=The Philosophical Review |date=May 1913 |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=284–303 |doi=10.2307/2178175|jstor=2178175 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Smart |first1=J. J. C. |title=Realism v. Idealism |journal=Philosophy |date=1986 |volume=61 |issue=237 |pages=295–312 |doi=10.1017/S0031819100051287 |jstor=3750295 |s2cid=170501178 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3750295 |issn=0031-8191}}</ref>

For the [[Quantitative research|quantitative approach]], philosophical debates in methodology include the distinction between the [[Inductive reasoning|inductive]] and the [[hypothetico-deductive]] interpretation of the scientific method. For [[qualitative research]], many basic assumptions are tied to philosophical positions such as [[hermeneutics]], [[pragmatism]], [[Marxism]], [[critical theory]], and [[postmodernism]].<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goldkuhl |first1=Göran |title=Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research |journal=European Journal of Information Systems |date=March 2012 |volume=21 |issue=2 |pages=135–146 |doi=10.1057/ejis.2011.54|s2cid=426843 |url=http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-76528 }}</ref> According to Kuhn, an important factor in such debates is that the different paradigms are [[Commensurability (philosophy of science)|incommensurable]]. This means that there is no overarching framework to assess the conflicting theoretical and methodological assumptions. This critique puts into question various presumptions of the quantitative approach associated with scientific progress based on the steady accumulation of data.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref name="Bird2018"/>

Other discussions of abstract theoretical issues in the philosophy of science are also sometimes included.<ref name="Mehrten2010">{{cite book |last1=Mehrten |first1=Arnd |editor1-last=Sandkühler |editor1-first=Hans Jörg |title=Enzyklopädie Philosophie |date=2010 |publisher=Meiner |url=https://meiner.de/enzyklopadie-philosophie-14071.html |chapter=Methode/Methodologie}}</ref><ref name="MetzlerMethodologie">{{cite book |editor1-last=Mittelstraß |editor1-first=Jürgen |title=Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie |date=2005 |publisher=Metzler |url=https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783476021083 |chapter=Methodologie}}</ref> This can involve questions like how and whether scientific research differs from [[fictional]] writing as well as whether research studies objective facts rather than constructing the phenomena it claims to study. In the latter sense, some methodologists have even claimed that the goal of science is less to represent a pre-existing reality and more to bring about some kind of social change in favor of repressed groups in society.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/>

=== Related terms and issues ===
Viknesh Andiappan and Yoke Kin Wan use the field of [[process systems engineering]] to distinguish the term "methodology" from the closely related terms "approach", "method", "procedure", and "technique".<ref name="Andiappan2020"/> On their view, "approach" is the most general term. It can be defined as "a way or direction used to address a problem based on a set of assumptions". An example is the difference between hierarchical approaches, which consider one task at a time in a hierarchical manner, and concurrent approaches, which consider them all simultaneously. Methodologies are a little more specific. They are general strategies needed to realize an approach and may be understood as guidelines for how to make choices. Often the term "framework" is used as a synonym. A method is a still more specific way of practically implementing the approach. Methodologies provide the guidelines that help researchers decide which method to follow. The method itself may be understood as a sequence of techniques. A technique is a step taken that can be observed and measured. Each technique has some immediate result. The whole sequence of steps is termed a "procedure".<ref name="Andiappan2020">{{cite journal |last1=Andiappan |first1=Viknesh |last2=Wan |first2=Yoke Kin |title=Distinguishing approach, methodology, method, procedure and technique in process systems engineering |journal=Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy |date=1 April 2020 |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=547–555 |doi=10.1007/s10098-020-01819-w |s2cid=211074515 |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10098-020-01819-w |language=en |issn=1618-9558}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ashphaq |first1=Mohammad |last2=Srivastava |first2=Pankaj K |last3=Mitra |first3=D |title=Review of near-shore satellite derived bathymetry: Classification and account of five decades of coastal bathymetry research |journal=Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science |date=December 2021 |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=340–359 |doi=10.1016/j.joes.2021.02.006|s2cid=233835386 |doi-access=free }}</ref> A similar but less complex characterization is sometimes found in the field of [[language teaching]], where the teaching process may be described through a three-level conceptualization based on "approach", "method", and "technique".<ref name="Richards2001">{{cite book |last1=Richards |first1=Jack C. |last2=Dudeney |first2=Gavin |last3=Rodgers |first3=Theodore S. |title=Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching |date=9 April 2001 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-80365-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gibu9KpIUugC&pg=PA19 |language=en}}</ref>

One question concerning the definition of methodology is whether it should be understood as a descriptive or a [[normative]] discipline. The key difference in this regard is whether methodology just provides a value-neutral description of methods or what scientists actually do. Many methodologists practice their craft in a normative sense, meaning that they express clear opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of different methods. In this regard, methodology is not just about what researchers ''actually do'' but about what they ''ought to do'' or how to perform ''good'' research.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref name="Hatfield1996"/>

== Types ==
Theorists often distinguish various general types or approaches to methodology. The most influential classification contrasts [[Quantitative research|quantitative]] and [[Qualitative research|qualitative methodology]].<ref name="Howell2012-13"/><ref name="Powell1996"/><ref name="Garcia2008"/><ref name="Spirkin1983"/>

=== Quantitative and qualitative ===
Quantitative research is closely associated with the [[natural sciences]]. It is based on precise numerical measurements, which are then used to arrive at exact general laws. This precision is also reflected in the goal of making predictions that can later be verified by other researchers.<ref name="Howell2012-13"/><ref name="Hatfield1996"/> Examples of quantitative research include physicists at the [[Large Hadron Collider]] measuring the mass of newly created particles and [[Positive psychology|positive psychologists]] conducting an online survey to determine the correlation between income and [[Subjective well-being|self-assessed well-being]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=OECD |title=OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being |date=20 March 2013 |publisher=OECD Publishing |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK189567/ |language=en |chapter=3 Measuring subjective well-being}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Aspers2019"/><ref name="Powell1996"/> 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.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Cooper |first=Barry |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/793207861 |title=Challenging the qualitative-quantitative divide: explorations in case-focused causal analysis|year=2012 |isbn=978-1-4411-0063-4 |publisher=A&C Black |oclc=793207861}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Newman, Isadore.|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44962443|title=Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: exploring the interactive continuum|date=1998|publisher=Southern Illinois University Press|others=Benz, Carolyn R. |isbn=0-585-17889-5|location=Carbondale, Ill.|oclc=44962443}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last=Niglas|first=Katrin|title=The Multidimensional Model of Research Methodology: An Integrated Set of Continua|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n9 |work=Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research|year=2010|pages=215–236|publisher=SagePublications, Inc.|doi=10.4135/9781506335193.n9|isbn=978-1-4129-7266-6|access-date=2020-10-28}}</ref> A lot of qualitative research is concerned with some form of human [[experience]] or [[Human behavior|behavior]], in which case it tends to focus on a few individuals and their in-depth understanding of the meaning of the studied phenomena.<ref name="Howell2012-13"/> 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 [[Interview (research)|in-depth interview]] with a participant from a new experimental therapy to assess its potential benefits and drawbacks.<ref name="Powell1996"/> It is also used to improve quantitative research, such as informing data collection materials and questionnaire design.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name="Aspers2019">{{cite journal |last1=Aspers |first1=Patrik |last2=Corte |first2=Ugo |title=What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research |journal=Qualitative Sociology |date=1 June 2019 |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=139–160 |doi=10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7 |pmid=31105362 |pmc=6494783 |language=en |issn=1573-7837}}</ref><ref name="Powell1996"/>

Quantitative methods dominate in the natural sciences but both methodologies are used in the social sciences.<ref name="Howell2012-13"/> Some social scientists focus mostly on one method while others try to investigate the same phenomenon using a variety of different methods.<ref name="Howell2012-13"/><ref name="Spirkin1983"/> It is central to both approaches how the group of individuals used for the data collection is selected. This process is known as [[Sampling (statistics)|sampling]]. It involves the selection of a subset of individuals or phenomena to be measured. Important in this regard is that the selected samples are representative of the whole population, i.e. that no significant biases were involved when choosing. If this is not the case, the data collected does not reflect what the population as a whole is like. This affects generalizations and predictions drawn from the biased data.<ref name="Howell2012-13"/><ref name="Garcia2008"/> The number of individuals selected is called the ''[[sample size]]''. For qualitative research, the sample size is usually rather small, while quantitative research tends to focus on big groups and collecting a lot of data. After the collection, the data needs to be analyzed and interpreted to arrive at interesting conclusions that pertain directly to the research question. This way, the wealth of information obtained is summarized and thus made more accessible to others. Especially in the case of quantitative research, this often involves the application of some form of statistics to make sense of the numerous individual measurements.<ref name="Garcia2008">{{cite book |last1=Garcia |first1=Ginny E. |last2=Poston |first2=Dudley L. |title=International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences |date=2008 |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/computers-and-electrical-engineering/computers-and-computing/methodology |chapter=Methodology}}</ref><ref name="Hatfield1996"/>

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]].<ref name="Hammersley2010"/> 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.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref name="Machlup1961">{{cite journal |last1=Machlup |first1=Fritz |title=Are the Social Sciences Really Inferior? |journal=Southern Economic Journal |date=January 1961 |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=173–184 |doi=10.2307/1055084|jstor=1055084 }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Bryman2008"/><ref name="Hammersley2010"/> The divide between quantitative and qualitative methods in the social sciences is one consequence of this criticism.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/>

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.<ref name="Powell1996">{{cite journal |last1= Powell |first1=Richard A. |last2=Single |first2=Helen M. |title=Focus Groups |journal=International Journal for Quality in Health Care |year=1996 |volume=8 |issue=5 |pages=499–504 |doi=10.1093/intqhc/8.5.499|pmid=9117204 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Important advantages of quantitative methods include precision and reliability.  However, they have often difficulties in studying very complex phenomena that are commonly of interest to the social sciences. Additional problems can arise when the data is misinterpreted to defend conclusions that are not directly supported by the measurements themselves.<ref name="Howell2012-13">{{cite book |last1=Howell |first1=Kerry E. |title=An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology |date=13 November 2012 |publisher=SAGE |isbn=978-1-4462-9062-0 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uYkRAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT193|language=en |chapter=13. Methods of Data Collection}}</ref> In recent decades, many researchers in the social sciences have started combining both methodologies. This is known as [[mixed-methods research]]. A central motivation for this is that the two approaches can complement each other in various ways: some issues are ignored or too difficult to study with one methodology and are better approached with the other. In other cases, both approaches are applied to the same issue to produce more comprehensive and well-rounded results.<ref name="Howell2012-13"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shorten |first1=Allison |last2=Smith |first2=Joanna |title=Mixed methods research: expanding the evidence base |journal=Evidence Based Nursing |date=July 2017 |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=74–75 |doi=10.1136/eb-2017-102699|pmid=28615184 |s2cid=42235471 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schoonenboom |first1=Judith |last2=Johnson |first2=R. Burke |title=How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design |journal=KZFSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie |date=October 2017 |volume=69 |issue=S2 |pages=107–131 |doi=10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1|pmid=28989188 |pmc=5602001 }}</ref>

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.<ref name="Garcia2008"/><ref>{{cite book |last1= Baynes |first1=Kenneth |editor-first1=Lee |editor-first2=Alex |editor-last1=McIntyre |editor-last2=Rosenberg |title=The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Social Science |date=22 December 2016 |publisher=Routledge Handbooks Online |isbn=978-1-138-82575-8 |url=https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315410098.ch7 |language= en |chapter=Interpretivism and Critical Theory|doi=10.4324/9781315410098 }}</ref><ref name="Ryan2018" />

=== 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.<ref name="Glaser1999">{{cite book |last1=Glaser |first1=Barney G. |last2=Strauss |first2=Anselm L. |title=The Discovery of Grounded Theory |date=1999 |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780203793206-5/substantive-formal-theory-barney-glaser-anselm-strauss |chapter=From Substantive to Formal Theory|pages=79–100 |doi=10.4324/9780203793206-5 |isbn=9780203793206 }}</ref><ref name="Spirkin1983"/><ref name="Rosenbaum2019">{{cite journal |last1=Rosenbaum |first1=Mark Scott |last2=Russell-Bennett |first2=Rebekah |title=Developing substantive theories into formal theories via disruption |journal=Journal of Services Marketing |date=1 January 2019 |volume=33 |issue=5 |pages=572–575 |doi=10.1108/JSM-04-2019-0158 |s2cid=199325682 |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JSM-04-2019-0158/full/html |issn=0887-6045}}</ref> A closely related classification distinguishes between philosophical, general scientific, and special scientific methods.<ref name="Spirkin1983"/><ref name="Spirkin1990">{{cite book |last1=Spirkin |first1=Aleksandr Georgievich |title=Fundamentals of Philosophy |date=1990 |publisher=Progress Publishers |isbn=978-5-01-002582-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5Mt-AAAAMAAJ |language=en |chapter=I.3. Philosophy as General Methodology}}</ref><ref name="Oduor2010">{{cite journal |last1=Oduor |first1=Rmj |title=Research Methodology in Philosophy within an Interdisciplinary and Commercialised African Context: Guarding Against Undue Influence from the Social Sciences |journal=Thought and Practice: A Journal of the Philosophical Association of Kenya |date=10 August 2010 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=87–118 |doi=10.4314/tp.v2i1.59969|doi-access=free }}</ref>

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.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stevenson |first1=Michael |last2=Witschge |first2=Tamara |title=Methods we live by: Proceduralism, process, and pedagogy |journal=NECSUS European Journal of Media Studies |date=2020 |volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=117–138 |doi=10.25969/mediarep/15344|s2cid=234945328 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lee |first1=Justin |title=Genre-Appropriate Judgments of Qualitative Research |journal=Philosophy of the Social Sciences |date=June 2014 |volume=44 |issue=3 |pages=316–348 |doi=10.1177/0048393113479142|s2cid=144760415 }}</ref>

Other types include inductive, deductive, and transcendental methods.<ref name="MetzlerMethodologie"/> Inductive methods are common in the empirical sciences and proceed through [[inductive reasoning]] from many particular observations to arrive at general conclusions, often in the form of universal laws.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Mittelstraß |editor1-first=Jürgen |title=Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie |date=2005 |publisher=Metzler |url=https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783476021083 |chapter=Methode, induktive}}</ref> Deductive methods, also referred to as axiomatic methods, are often found in [[formal science]]s, such as [[geometry]]. They start from a set of self-evident [[axiom]]s or first principles and use deduction to infer interesting conclusions from these axioms.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Mittelstraß |editor1-first=Jürgen |title=Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie |date=2005 |publisher=Metzler |url=https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783476021083 |chapter=Methode, deduktive}}</ref> [[Transcendental arguments|Transcendental methods]] are common in [[Kantian]] and [[Post-Kantianism|post-Kantian]] philosophy. They start with certain particular observations. It is then argued that the observed phenomena can only exist if their conditions of possibility are fulfilled. This way, the researcher may draw general psychological or metaphysical conclusions based on the claim that the phenomenon would not be observable otherwise.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Mittelstraß |editor1-first=Jürgen |title=Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie |date=2005 |publisher=Metzler |url=https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783476021083 |chapter=Methode, transzendentale}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name="Herrman2009"/> Method is often seen as one of the main factors of [[scientific progress]]. This is especially true for the natural sciences where the [[Scientific Revolution|developments of experimental methods in the 16th and 17th century]] are often seen as the driving force behind the success and prominence of the natural sciences.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/> In some cases, the choice of methodology may have a severe impact on a research project. The reason is that very different and sometimes even opposite conclusions may follow from the same factual material based on the chosen methodology.<ref name="Spirkin1983"/>

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.<ref name="Spirkin1983"/> Methods are needed to simplify this complexity and find a way of mastering it. On the theoretical side, this concerns ways of forming true [[belief]]s 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".<ref name="Spirkin1983">{{cite book |last1=Spirkin |first1=Aleksandr Georgievich |title=Dialectical Materialism |date=1983 |publisher=Progress Publishers |url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch01-s03.html |language=en |chapter=1. Philosophy As A World-View And A Methodology}}</ref><ref name="Spirkin1990"/>

Various theorists have observed that the interest in methodology has risen significantly in the 20th century.<ref name="Spirkin1983"/><ref name="Hammersley2010"/> 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.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/> 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.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref name="Finch2011">{{cite book |last1=Finch |first1=Henry A. |title=Methodology of Social Sciences: Max Weber |date=31 December 2011 |publisher=Transaction Publishers |isbn=978-1-4128-4383-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TYvRby1ic6AC |language=en}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Spirkin1983"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Spirkin |first1=Aleksandr Georgievich |title=Fundamentals of Philosophy |date=1990 |publisher=Progress Publishers |isbn=978-5-01-002582-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5Mt-AAAAMAAJ |language=en |chapter=XVI.2. The Dialectics of World Development in the Present Epoch}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref name="Bryman2008"/> In this regard, many objections to methodology focus on the quantitative approach, specifically when it is treated as the only viable approach.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref name="Machlup1961"/> 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".<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref name="Woolf2017">{{cite book |last1=Woolf |first1=Nicholas H. |last2=Silver |first2=Christina |title=Qualitative Analysis Using NVivo: The Five-Level QDA® Method |date=20 September 2017 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-351-72286-5 |page=32 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8mZQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32 |language=en}}</ref> According to [[C. Wright Mills]], the practice of methodology often degenerates into a "fetishism of method and technique".<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Kerr |first1=Keith |title=Sociologogically imagined: The decentering of C. Wright Mills, the postmodern cowboy |date=2007 |publisher=Texas A&M University |page=5 |url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147133372.pdf}}</ref>

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 [[skill]]s 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.<ref name="OvergaardMethodology"/> According to an example by [[Gilbert Ryle]], "[w]e run, as a rule, worse, not better, if we think a lot about our feet".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Ryle |first1=Gilbert |title=Collected Essays 1929 - 1968: Collected Papers |date=16 June 2009 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-0-203-87530-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OxhjbdR2T2MC |language=en |chapter=23 Ordinary language}}</ref><ref name="OvergaardMethodology"/> 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.<ref name="Chamberlain2000"/>

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.<ref name="Chamberlain2000">{{cite journal |last1=Chamberlain |first1=Kerry |title=Methodolatry and Qualitative Health Research |journal=Journal of Health Psychology |date=May 2000 |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=285–296 |doi=10.1177/135910530000500306|pmid=22049137 |s2cid=10224789 }}</ref><ref name="Hammersley2010"/> Similar arguments are given in [[Paul Feyerabend]]'s book "[[Against Method]]".<ref name="Feyerabend1993">{{cite book |last1=Feyerabend |first1=Paul |title=Against Method |date=1993 |publisher=Verso |isbn=978-0-86091-646-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8y-FVtrKeSYC |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Hammersley2010"/>

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.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/><ref name="Bryman2008"/>

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.<ref name="Bryman2008"/> An often-cited quotation in this regard is that "[m]ethodology is too important to be left to methodologists".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Becker |first1=Howard Saul |title=Sociological Work |publisher=Transaction Publishers |isbn=978-1-4128-3470-4 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=StGqxHrNhrMC |language=en |chapter=1.1 On methodology}}</ref><ref name="Bryman2008"/><ref name="Hammersley2010">{{cite book |last1=Hammersley |first1=Martyn |title=Methodology: Who Needs It? |date=14 December 2010 |publisher=SAGE |isbn=978-1-4462-1012-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lWYS8txLS-EC&pg=PA17 |language=en}}</ref> [[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.<ref name="Bryman2008">{{cite journal |last1=Bryman |first1=Alan |title=Of methods and methodology |journal=Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management |date=22 August 2008 |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=159–168 |doi=10.1108/17465640810900568}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name="OvergaardMethodology"/><ref name="Hatfield1996"/><ref name="Garcia2008"/>

=== Natural sciences ===
[[File:STARR-seq Methodology.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The methodology underlying a type of [[DNA sequencing]]]]
The dominant methodology in the [[natural science]]s (like [[astronomy]], [[biology]], [[chemistry]], [[geoscience]], and [[physics]]) is called the [[scientific method]].<ref name="Hatfield1996"/><ref>{{Cite book|last=Lakatos, Imre|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2896185|title=Philosophical papers|date=1978|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=0-521-21644-3|location=Cambridge|oclc=2896185}}</ref> Its main cognitive aim is usually seen as the creation of [[knowledge]], but various closely related aims have also been proposed, like understanding, explanation, or predictive success. Strictly speaking, there is no one single scientific method. In this regard, the expression "scientific method" refers not to one specific procedure but to different general or abstract methodological aspects characteristic of all the aforementioned fields. Important features are that the problem is formulated in a clear manner and that the evidence presented for or against a theory is public, reliable, and replicable. The last point is important so that other researchers are able to repeat the experiments to [[Scientific method#Confirmation|confirm]] or disconfirm the initial study.<ref name="Hatfield1996"/><ref name="BritannicaScientificMethod"/><ref name="Hepburn2021">{{cite web |last1=Hepburn |first1=Brian |last2=Andersen |first2=Hanne |title=Scientific Method |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=23 July 2022 |date=2021}}</ref> For this reason, various factors and variables of the situation often have to be controlled to avoid distorting influences and to ensure that subsequent measurements by other researchers yield the same results.<ref name="Hammersley2010"/> The scientific method is a quantitative approach that aims at obtaining numerical data. This data is often described using mathematical formulas. The goal is usually to arrive at some universal generalizations that apply not just to the artificial situation of the experiment but to the world at large. Some data can only be acquired using advanced measurement instruments. In cases where the data is very complex, it is often necessary to employ sophisticated statistical techniques to draw conclusions from it.<ref name="Hatfield1996"/><ref name="BritannicaScientificMethod"/><ref name="Hepburn2021"/>

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.<ref name="BritannicaScientificMethod">{{cite web |title=scientific method |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method |website=www.britannica.com |access-date=17 July 2022 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Hatfield1996"/><ref name="Hepburn2021"/>

Two central aspects of the scientific method are [[observation]] and [[experimentation]].<ref name="Hatfield1996">{{cite book |last1=Hatfield |first1=Gary |editor1-last=Craig |editor1-first=Edward |title=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=1996 |publisher=Routledge |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/BEAREO |chapter=Scientific method}}</ref> This distinction is based on the idea that experimentation involves some form of manipulation or intervention.<ref name="Malik">{{cite journal |last1=Malik |first1=Saira |title=Observation Versus Experiment: An Adequate Framework for Analysing Scientific Experimentation? |journal=Journal for General Philosophy of Science |date=2017 |volume=48 |issue=1 |pages=71–95 |doi=10.1007/s10838-016-9335-y |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/MALOVE|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=González |first1=Wenceslao J. |title=New Methodological Perspectives on Observation and Experimentation in Science |year=2010 |publisher=Netbiblo |isbn=978-84-9745-530-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xZuOHU4aAh8C |language=en |chapter=1. Recent approaches on Observation and Experimentation}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Boyd |first1=Nora Mills |last2=Bogen |first2=James |title=Theory and Observation in Science |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=21 June 2021 |date=2021}}</ref><ref name="Howell2012-13"/> This way, the studied phenomena are actively created or shaped. For example, a biologist inserting viral [[DNA]] into a bacterium is engaged in a form of experimentation. Pure observation, on the other hand, involves studying independent entities in a passive manner. This is the case, for example, when [[astronomer]]s observe the orbits of astronomical objects far away.<ref name="Okasha">{{cite journal |last1=Okasha |first1=S. |title=Experiment, Observation and the Confirmation of Laws |journal=Analysis |date=2011 |volume=71 |issue=2 |pages=222–232 |doi=10.1093/analys/anr014 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/OKAEOA|hdl=1983/79e68032-e432-47de-adb5-e7ca3ff2841d |hdl-access=free }}</ref>  Observation played the main role in [[ancient science]]. The scientific revolution in the 16th and 17th century affected a paradigm change that gave a much more central role to experimentation in the scientific methodology.<ref name="Malik"/><ref name="Hatfield1996"/> This is sometimes expressed by stating that [[modern science]] actively "puts questions to nature".<ref name="Okasha"/> While the distinction is usually clear in the paradigmatic cases, there are also many intermediate cases where it is not obvious whether they should be characterized as observation or as experimentation.<ref name="Okasha"/><ref name="Malik"/>

A central discussion in this field concerns the distinction between the [[Inductive reasoning|inductive]] and the [[hypothetico-deductive method]]ology. The core disagreement between these two approaches concerns their understanding of the confirmation of scientific theories. The inductive approach holds that a theory is confirmed or supported by all its positive instances, i.e. by all the observations that exemplify it.<ref name="Dogan">{{cite journal |last1=Dogan |first1=Aysel |title=Confirmation of Scientific Hypotheses as Relations |journal=Journal for General Philosophy of Science |date=2005 |volume=36 |issue=2 |pages=243–259 |doi=10.1007/s10838-006-1065-0 |s2cid=120030170 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/DOGCOS}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Culler |first1=Madison |title=Beyond Bootstrapping: A New Account of Evidential Relevance |journal=Philosophy of Science |date=1995 |volume=62 |issue=4 |pages=561–579 |doi=10.1086/289886 |s2cid=121195603 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/CULBBA}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stemmer |first1=Nathan |title=The Objective Confirmation of Hypotheses |journal=Canadian Journal of Philosophy |date=1981 |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=395–404 |doi=10.1080/00455091.1981.10716311 |s2cid=148236513 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/STETOC-3}}</ref> For example, the observations of many white swans confirm the universal hypothesis that "all swans are white".<ref name="DiFate">{{cite web |last1=DiFate |first1=Victor |title=Evidence |url=https://iep.utm.edu/evidence/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=11 June 2021}}</ref><ref name="Crupi">{{cite web |last1=Crupi |first1=Vincenzo |title=Confirmation |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confirmation/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=13 June 2021 |date=2021}}</ref> The hypothetico-deductive approach, on the other hand, focuses not on positive instances but on deductive consequences of the theory.<ref name="DiFate"/><ref name="Crupi"/><ref>{{cite web |title=hypothetico-deductive method |url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095954755 |website=Oxford Reference |access-date=15 June 2021 |language=en }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=hypothetico-deductive method |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/hypothetico-deductive-method |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |access-date=15 June 2021 |language=en}}</ref> This way, the researcher uses [[Deductive reasoning|deduction]] before conducting an experiment to infer what observations they expect.<ref name="Folde">{{cite journal |last1=Folde |first1=Christian |title=Interpretation and the Hypothetico-Deductive Method: A Dilemma |journal=Journal of Literary Theory |date=2016-03-01 |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=58–82 |doi=10.1515/jlt-2016-0003 |s2cid=147343629 |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jlt-2016-0003/html |language=en |issn=1862-8990}}</ref><ref name="Hatfield1996"/> These expectations are then compared to the observations they actually make. This approach often takes a negative form based on falsification. In this regard, positive instances do not confirm a hypothesis but negative instances disconfirm it. Positive indications that the hypothesis is true are only given indirectly if many attempts to find counterexamples have failed.<ref name="Thornton2021">{{cite web |last1=Thornton |first1=Stephen |title=Karl Popper: 4. Basic Statements, Falsifiability and Convention |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/#BasiStatFalsConv |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=18 July 2022 |date=2021}}</ref> A cornerstone of this approach is the [[null hypothesis]], which assumes that there is no connection (see [[causality]]) between whatever is being observed. It is up to the researcher to do all they can to disprove their own hypothesis through relevant methods or techniques, documented in a clear and replicable process. If they fail to do so, it can be concluded that the null hypothesis is false, which provides support for their own hypothesis about the relation between the observed phenomena.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Çaparlar|first1=Ceyda Özhan|last2=Dönmez|first2=Aslı|date=2016|title=What is Scientific Research and How Can it be Done?|journal=Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation|volume=44|issue=4|pages=212–218|doi=10.5152/TJAR.2016.34711|issn=2149-0937|pmc=5019873|pmid=27909596}}</ref>

=== Social sciences ===
{{See also |Historical method}}
Significantly more methodological variety is found in the [[social science]]s, where both quantitative and qualitative approaches are used. They employ various forms of data collection, such as [[Survey methodology|surveys]], interviews, focus groups, and the nominal group technique.<ref name="Howell2012-13"/><ref name="Powell1996"/><ref name="Garcia2008"/><ref>{{Cite book|last=Hollis, Martin|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/782950418|title=The philosophy of social science : an introduction|year=2014|isbn=978-1-139-07679-1|location=Cambridge [England]|oclc=782950418}}</ref> Surveys belong to quantitative research and usually involve some form of questionnaire given to a large group of individuals. It is paramount that the questions are easily understandable by the participants since the answers might not have much value otherwise. Surveys normally restrict themselves to [[closed question]]s in order to avoid various problems that come with the interpretation of answers to [[Open-ended question|open questions]]. They contrast in this regard to interviews, which put more emphasis on the individual participant and often involve open questions. [[Structured interview]]s are planned in advance and have a fixed set of questions given to each individual. They contrast with [[unstructured interview]]s, which are closer to a free-flow conversation and require more improvisation on the side of the interviewer for finding interesting and relevant questions. [[Semi-structured interview]]s constitute a middle ground: they include both predetermined questions and questions not planned in advance.<ref name="Howell2012-13"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Adams |first1=William C. |title=Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation |date=14 October 2015 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |isbn=978-1-119-17138-6 |pages=492–505 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19 |language=en |chapter=19. Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews|doi=10.1002/9781119171386.ch19 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Marshall |first1=Gordon |title=A Dictionary of Sociology |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/political-science-and-government/military-affairs-nonnaval/interview#1O88interview |chapter=Interview}}</ref> Structured interviews make it easier to compare the responses of the different participants and to draw general conclusions. However, they also limit what may be discovered and thus constrain the investigation in many ways.<ref name="Howell2012-13"/><ref name="Powell1996"/> Depending on the type and depth of the interview, this method belongs either to quantitative or to qualitative research.<ref name="Powell1996"/><ref name="Howell2012-13"/> The terms research conversation <ref>{{cite journal |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272152794|title=It ain't just what you do and the way that you do it: why discourse matters in higher education communities of practice|journal=Higher Education Research & Development|volume=34|issue=5|pages=1001–1013|author=Ryan, J.| year=2015 | doi = 10.1080/07294360.2015.1011087|s2cid=143918006 }}</ref> and muddy interview<ref>{{cite journal  |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278151110|title=Leaning in to "Muddy" Interviews  | journal=Qualitative Inquiry | doi=10.1177/1077800413510869 | year=2014 |author1=Lena Lippke|author2=Lene Tanggaard |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=136–143|s2cid=144894764 }}</ref> have been used to describe interviews conducted in informal settings which may not occur purely for the purposes of data collection. Some researcher employ the go-along method by conducting interviews while they and the participants navigate through and engage with their environment.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kusenbach |first1=Margarethe |editor1-last=Schwanhäußer |editor1-first=Anja |title=Sensing the City |date=29 January 2016 |publisher=Birkhäuser |isbn=978-3-0356-0735-2 |pages=154–158 |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783035607352-015/html?lang=en |language=en |chapter=The Go-Along Method}}</ref>

[[Focus group]]s are a qualitative research method often used in [[market research]]. They constitute a form of group interview involving a small number of [[Demography|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.<ref name="Howell2012-13"/><ref name="Powell1996"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vicsek |first1=Lilla |title=Issues in the Analysis of Focus Groups: Generalisability, Quantifiability, Treatment of Context and Quotations |journal=The Qualitative Report |date=19 November 2014 |doi=10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1143|doi-access=free }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Powell1996"/> When applied to [[cross-cultural]] settings, cultural and linguistic adaptations and group composition considerations are important to encourage greater participation in the group discussion.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Sha |first=Mandy |url=https://www.rti.org/rti-press-publication/language-survey-research |title=The Essential Role of Language in Survey Research |date=2020-04-30 |publisher=RTI Press |isbn=978-1-934831-24-3 |editor-last=Sha |editor-first=Mandy |pages=221–230 |chapter=Cross-cultural comparisons of focus groups as a research method (Chapter 8) |doi=10.3768/rtipress.bk.0023.2004 |editor-last2=Gabel |editor-first2=Tim |doi-access=free}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Powell1996"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vander Laenen |first1=Freya |title=Not just another focus group: making the case for the nominal group technique in criminology |journal=Crime Science |date=4 March 2015 |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=5 |doi=10.1186/s40163-014-0016-z |s2cid=195583226 |issn=2193-7680 |doi-access=free |hdl=1854/LU-5877565 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Varga-Atkins |first1=Tünde |last2=McIsaac |first2=Jaye |last3=Willis |first3=Ian |title=Focus Group meets Nominal Group Technique: an effective combination for student evaluation? |journal=Innovations in Education and Teaching International |date=4 July 2017 |volume=54 |issue=4 |pages=289–300 |doi=10.1080/14703297.2015.1058721 |s2cid=142680233 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14703297.2015.1058721 |issn=1470-3297}}</ref>

Most of these forms of data collection involve some type of [[observation]]. Observation can take place either in a natural setting, i.e. the ''field'', or in a controlled setting such as a laboratory. Controlled settings carry with them the risk of distorting the results due to their artificiality. Their advantage lies in precisely controlling the relevant factors, which can help make the observations more reliable and repeatable. Non-participatory observation involves a distanced or external approach. In this case, the researcher focuses on describing and recording the observed phenomena without causing or changing them, in contrast to [[participatory observation]].<ref name="Howell2012-13"/><ref>{{cite book |title=A Dictionary of Sociology |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/non-participant-observation |chapter=Non-Participant Observation}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts-87 |chapter=Observation, Participant}}</ref>

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. [[Positivism#Social sciences|Positivists]] agree with this characterization, in contrast to interpretive and critical perspectives on the social sciences.<ref name="Garcia2008"/><ref name="Lee1991"/><ref name="Ryan2018"/> 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 [[Causality|causal]] laws that can be used to predict general patterns of human activity". This view is rejected by [[Antipositivism|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 theory|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.<ref name="Garcia2008"/><ref name="Lee1991">{{cite journal |last1=Lee |first1=Allen S. |title=Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research |journal=Organization Science |date=1991 |volume=2 |issue=4 |pages=342–365 |doi=10.1287/orsc.2.4.342 |jstor=2635169 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2635169 |issn=1047-7039}}</ref><ref name="Ryan2018">{{cite journal |last1=Ryan |first1=Gemma |title=Introduction to positivism, interpretivism and critical theory |journal=Nurse Researcher |date=16 March 2018 |volume=25 |issue=4 |pages=14–20 |doi=10.7748/nr.2018.e1466|pmid=29546962 |s2cid=207540799 |url=http://oro.open.ac.uk/49591/17/49591ORO.pdf }}</ref>

=== Philosophy ===
{{main|Philosophical methodology}}
Philosophical methodology is the [[Metaphilosophy|metaphilosophical]] field of inquiry studying the methods used in [[philosophy]]. These methods structure how philosophers conduct their research, acquire knowledge, and select between competing theories.<ref name="McKeon">{{cite book |last1=McKeon |first1=R. |title=New Catholic Encyclopedia |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/methodology-philosophy |chapter=Methodology (Philosophy)}}</ref><ref name="OvergaardMethodology">{{cite book |last1=Overgaard |first1=Søren |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-companion-to-philosophical-methodology/introduction/03C3CBE35E1E1FD54E29AD2D5E1C4D48 |title=The Cambridge Companion to Philosophical Methodology |last2=D'Oro |first2=Giuseppina |date=2017 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-107-54736-0 |pages=1–10 |chapter=Introduction}}</ref><ref name="MeinerMethode">{{cite book |editor1-last=Sandkühler |editor1-first=Hans Jörg |title=Enzyklopädie Philosophie |date=2010 |publisher=Meiner |url=https://meiner.de/enzyklopadie-philosophie-14071.html |chapter=Methode/Methodologie}}</ref> It concerns both descriptive issues of what methods have been used by philosophers in the past and normative issues of which methods should be used. Many philosophers emphasize that these methods differ significantly from the methods found in the natural sciences in that they usually do not rely on [[experimental data]] obtained through [[Measurement|measuring equipment]].<ref name="DalyIntroduction">{{cite book |last1=Daly |first1=Christopher |title=An Introduction to Philosophical Methods |date=20 July 2010 |publisher=Broadview Press |isbn=978-1-55111-934-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wilaDwAAQBAJ |language=en |chapter=Introduction}}</ref><ref name="VeryShortIntro">{{cite book |last1=Williamson |first1=Timothy |title=1. Introduction |year=2020 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-184724-0 |url=https://www.veryshortintroductions.com/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198810001.001.0001/actrade-9780198810001-chapter-1}}</ref><ref name="Ichikawa">{{cite journal |last1=Ichikawa |first1=Jonathan |title=Chris Daly: An Introduction to Philosophical Methods |url=https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/an-introduction-to-philosophical-methods/ |website=Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews |date=3 April 2011 |access-date=22 February 2022 |language=en}}</ref> Which method one follows can have wide implications for how philosophical theories are constructed, what theses are defended, and what arguments are cited in favor or against.<ref name="OvergaardMethodology"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nado |first1=Jennifer |title=How To Think About Philosophical Methodology |journal=Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research |date=1 September 2017 |volume=34 |issue=3 |pages=447–463 |doi=10.1007/s40961-017-0116-8 |s2cid=171569977 |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40961-017-0116-8 |language=en |issn=2363-9962}}</ref><ref name="Cappelen">{{cite book |last1=Cappelen |first1=Herman |last2=Gendler |first2=Tamar Szabó |last3=Hawthorne |first3=John |chapter=Preface |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology |date=19 May 2016 |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668779.013.34 |isbn=978-0-19-966877-9 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668779.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199668779-e-34 |language=en}}</ref> In this regard, many philosophical disagreements have their source in methodological disagreements. Historically, the discovery of new methods, like [[methodological skepticism]] and the [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenological method]], has had important impacts on the philosophical discourse.<ref name="DalyHandbook">{{cite book |last1=Daly |first1=Chris |title=The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophical Methods |date=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |isbn=978-1-137-34455-7 |pages=1–30 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137344557_1 |language=en |chapter=Introduction and Historical Overview|doi=10.1057/9781137344557_1 }}</ref><ref name="MeinerMethode"/><ref name="OvergaardMethodology"/>

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 [[first principle]]s that are indubitable.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Malachowski |first1=Alan |title=Methodological scepticism, metaphysics and meaning |journal=International Journal of Philosophical Studies |date=1 September 1993 |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=302–312 |doi=10.1080/09672559308570774 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09672559308570774 |issn=0967-2559}}</ref> 
* The geometric method starts from such first principles and employs [[deductive reasoning]] to construct a comprehensive philosophical system based on them.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Goldenbaum |first1=Ursula |title=Geometrical Method |url=https://iep.utm.edu/geo-meth/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=17 February 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Nadler |first1=Steven |title=Spinoza's 'Ethics': An Introduction |date=2006 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-83620-3 |pages=35–51 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/spinozas-ethics/geometric-method/08550AF622C78ACC388069710D37036E |chapter=The geometric method}}</ref> 
* Phenomenology gives particular importance to how things appear to be. It consists in suspending one's judgments about whether these things actually exist in the external world. This technique is known as [[epoché]] and can be used to study [[Phenomenon|appearance]]s independent of assumptions about their causes.<ref name="IEPReduction">{{cite web |last1=Cogan |first1=John |title=Phenomenological Reduction, The |url=https://iep.utm.edu/phen-red/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=27 February 2022}}</ref><ref name="MeinerMethode"/> 
* The method of [[conceptual analysis]] came to particular prominence with the advent of [[analytic philosophy]]. It studies concepts by breaking them down into their most fundamental constituents to clarify their meaning.<ref name="Eder">{{cite journal |last1=Eder |first1=Anna-Maria A. |last2=Lawler |first2=Insa |last3=van Riel |first3=Raphael |title=Philosophical methods under scrutiny: introduction to the special issue philosophical methods |journal=Synthese |date=1 March 2020 |volume=197 |issue=3 |pages=915–923 |doi=10.1007/s11229-018-02051-2 |s2cid=54631297 |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-018-02051-2 |language=en |issn=1573-0964|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=SHAFFER |first1=MICHAEL J. |title=The Problem of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions and Conceptual Analysis |journal=Metaphilosophy |date=2015 |volume=46 |issue=4/5 |pages=555–563 |doi=10.1111/meta.12158 |jstor=26602327 |s2cid=148551744 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26602327 |issn=0026-1068}}</ref><ref name="MacmillanPhilosophy">{{cite book |last1=Audi |first1=Robert |title=Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition |date=2006 |publisher=Macmillan |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/philosophy/philosophy-terms-and-concepts/philosophy|chapter=Philosophy}}</ref> 
* Common sense philosophy uses common and widely accepted beliefs as a philosophical tool. They are used to draw interesting conclusions. This is often employed in a negative sense to discredit radical philosophical positions that go against [[common sense]].<ref name="Ichikawa"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=REYNOLDS |first1=JACK |title=Common Sense and Philosophical Methodology: Some Metaphilosophical Reflections on Analytic Philosophy and Deleuze |journal=The Philosophical Forum |date=4 August 2010 |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=231–258 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9191.2010.00361.x |hdl=10536/DRO/DU:30061043 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9191.2010.00361.x |issn=0031-806X|hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref name="BritannicaCommon">{{cite web |title=philosophy of common sense |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-common-sense |website=www.britannica.com |access-date=27 February 2022 |language=en}}</ref> 
* [[Ordinary language philosophy]] has a very similar method: it approaches philosophical questions by looking at how the corresponding terms are used in [[ordinary language]].<ref name="MeinerMethode"/><ref name="IEPOrdinary">{{cite web |last1=Parker-Ryan |first1=Sally |title=Ordinary Language Philosophy |url=https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=28 February 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=ordinary language analysis |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/ordinary-language-analysis |website=www.britannica.com |access-date=28 February 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

* Many methods in philosophy rely on some form of [[intuition]]. They are used, for example, to evaluate [[thought experiment]]s, which involve imagining situations to assess their possible consequences in order to confirm or refute philosophical theories.<ref name="Brown">{{cite web |last1=Brown |first1=James Robert |last2=Fehige |first2=Yiftach |title=Thought Experiments |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=29 October 2021 |date=2019}}</ref><ref name="Goffi">{{cite journal |last1=Goffi |first1=Jean-Yves |last2=Roux |first2=Sophie |author2-link=Sophie Roux|title=On the Very Idea of a Thought Experiment |journal=Thought Experiments in Methodological and Historical Contexts |date=2011 |pages=165–191 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/GOFOTV |publisher=Brill|doi=10.1163/ej.9789004201767.i-233.35 |isbn=9789004201774 |s2cid=260640180 }}</ref><ref name="Eder"/> 
* The method of [[reflective equilibrium]] tries to form a coherent perspective by examining and reevaluating all the relevant beliefs and intuitions.<ref name="DalyHandbook"/><ref name="StanfordEquilibrium">{{cite web |last1=Daniels |first1=Norman |title=Reflective Equilibrium |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reflective-equilibrium/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=28 February 2022 |date=2020}}</ref><ref name="Little">{{cite journal |last1=Little |first1=Daniel |title=Reflective Equilibrium and Justification |journal=Southern Journal of Philosophy |date=1984 |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=373–387 |doi=10.1111/j.2041-6962.1984.tb00354.x |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/LITREA-2}}</ref> 
* [[Pragmatism|Pragmatists]] focus on the practical consequences of philosophical theories to assess whether they are true or false.<ref name="IEPPragmatism">{{cite web |last1=McDermid |first1=Douglas |title=Pragmatism |url=https://iep.utm.edu/pragmati/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=22 February 2022}}</ref><ref name="Bawden">{{cite journal |last1=Bawden |first1=H. Heath |title=What is Pragmatism? |journal=The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods |date=1904 |volume=1 |issue=16 |pages=421–427 |doi=10.2307/2011902 |jstor=2011902 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2011902 |issn=0160-9335}}</ref> 
* [[Experimental philosophy]] is a recently developed approach that uses the methodology of [[social psychology]] and the [[cognitive sciences]] for gathering [[empirical evidence]] and justifying philosophical claims.<ref name="StanfordExperimental">{{cite web |last1=Knobe |first1=Joshua |last2=Nichols |first2=Shaun |title=Experimental Philosophy |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/experimental-philosophy/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=1 March 2022 |date=2017}}</ref><ref name="Plakias">{{cite web |last1=Plakias |first1=Alexandra |title=Experimental Philosophy |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935314-e-17 |website=Oxford Handbooks Online |access-date=1 March 2022 |language=en |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.17 |date=3 February 2015|isbn=978-0-19-993531-4 }}</ref>

=== Mathematics ===
{{See also |Philosophy of mathematics#Logic and rigor}}
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 [[definition]]s and [[axiom]]s and proceed by taking [[Inference|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 [[Mathematical proof|proofs]]. The two are equivalent in the sense that the same proof may be presented either way.<ref name="Young1968">{{cite journal |last1=Young |first1=J. W. A. |title=The Teaching of Mathematics |journal=The Mathematics Teacher |date=1968 |volume=61 |issue=3 |pages=287–295 |doi=10.5951/MT.61.3.0287 |jstor=27957829 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/27957829 |issn=0025-5769}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Mittelstraß |editor1-first=Jürgen |title=Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie |date=2005 |publisher=Metzler |url=https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783476021083 |chapter=Methode, analytische}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Mittelstraß |editor1-first=Jürgen |title=Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie |date=2005 |publisher=Metzler |url=https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783476021083 |chapter=Methode, synthetische}}</ref>

=== Statistics ===
{{main|Statistics}}
Statistics investigates the analysis, interpretation, and presentation of [[data]]. It plays a central role in many forms of quantitative research that have to deal with the data of many observations and measurements. In such cases, [[data analysis]] is used to [[Data cleansing|cleanse]], [[Data transformation|transform]], and [[Data modelling|model]] the data to arrive at practically useful conclusions. There are numerous methods of data analysis. They are usually divided into [[descriptive statistics]] and [[inferential statistics]]. Descriptive statistics restricts itself to the data at hand. It tries to summarize the most salient features and present them in insightful ways. This can happen, for example, by visualizing its distribution or by calculating [[Index (statistics)|indices]] such as the [[mean]] or the [[standard deviation]]. Inferential statistics, on the other hand, uses this data based on a sample to draw inferences about the population at large. That can take the form of making generalizations and predictions or by assessing the probability of a concrete hypothesis.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mishra |first1=Prabhaker |last2=Pandey |first2=ChandraMani |last3=Singh |first3=Uttam |last4=Keshri |first4=Amit |last5=Sabaretnam |first5=Mayilvaganan |title=Selection of appropriate statistical methods for data analysis |journal=Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia |date=2019 |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=297–301 |doi=10.4103/aca.ACA_248_18|pmid=31274493 |pmc=6639881 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Stapor |first1=Katarzyna |title=Introduction to Probabilistic and Statistical Methods with Examples in R |date=2020 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-030-45799-0 |pages=63–131 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-45799-0_2 |language=en |chapter=Descriptive and Inferential Statistics|series=Intelligent Systems Reference Library |volume=176 |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-45799-0_2 |s2cid=219519804 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Byrne |first1=Gillian |title=A Statistical Primer: Understanding Descriptive and Inferential Statistics |journal=Evidence Based Library and Information Practice |date=14 March 2007 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=32–47 |doi=10.18438/B8FW2H|doi-access=free }}</ref>

=== Pedagogy ===
{{main|Pedagogy}}
Pedagogy can be defined as the study or [[science]] of [[teaching method]]s.<ref name="Watkins1999">{{cite book |last1=Watkins |first1=Chris |last2=Mortimore |first2=Peter |title=Understanding Pedagogy and its Impact on Learning |date=1999 |url=https://sk.sagepub.com/books/understanding-pedagogy-and-its-impact-on-learning/n1.xml |chapter=1: Pedagogy: What do we Know?|doi=10.4135/9781446219454 |isbn=9781853964534 }}</ref><ref name="Murphy2003">{{cite book |last1=Murphy |first1=Patricia |editor1-last=Gipps |editor1-first=Caroline V. |title=Equity in the Classroom: Towards Effective Pedagogy for Girls and Boys |date=2 September 2003 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-135-71682-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BjqQAgAAQBAJ |language=en |chapter=1. Defining Pedagogy}}</ref> In this regard, it is the methodology of [[education]]: it investigates the methods and practices that can be applied to fulfill the [[aims of education]].<ref name="Peel2020"/><ref name="Murphy2003"/><ref name="Howell2012-Preface"/> These aims include the transmission of [[knowledge]] as well as fostering [[skill]]s and [[character trait]]s.<ref name="Peel2020">{{cite web |last1=Peel |first1=Edwin A. |title=pedagogy |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/pedagogy |website=www.britannica.com |access-date=15 August 2022 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Chazan |first1=Barry |chapter=What is "Education"? |title=Principles and Pedagogies in Jewish Education |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-030-83925-3 |pages=13–21 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-83925-3_3 |language=en |year=2022 |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-83925-3_3 |s2cid=239896844 |access-date=13 May 2022 |archive-date=12 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220512120351/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-83925-3_3 |url-status=live }}</ref> Its main focus is on teaching methods in the context of regular [[school]]s. But in its widest sense, it encompasses all forms of education, both inside and outside schools.<ref name="Anderson2005">{{cite book |last1=Anderson |first1=Philip M. |editor1-last=Kincheloe |editor1-first=Joe L. |title=Classroom Teaching: An Introduction |date=2005 |publisher=Peter Lang |isbn=978-0-8204-7858-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kzWq-oGRlNcC |language=en |chapter=3. The Meaning of Pedagogy}}</ref> In this wide sense, pedagogy is concerned with "any conscious activity by one person designed to enhance learning in another".<ref name="Watkins1999"/> The teaching happening this way is a process taking place between two parties: teachers and learners. Pedagogy investigates how the teacher can help the learner undergo [[experience]]s that promote their [[understanding]] of the subject matter in question.<ref name="Peel2020"/><ref name="Murphy2003"/>

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.<ref name="Peel2020"/><ref name="Murphy2003"/> [[Herbartianism]] identifies five essential components of teaching: preparation, presentation, association, generalization, and application. They correspond to different phases of the educational process: getting ready for it, showing new ideas, bringing these ideas in relation to known ideas, understanding the general principle behind their instances, and putting what one has learned into practice.<ref name="BritannicaHerbartianism">{{cite web |title=Herbartianism |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Herbartianism |website=www.britannica.com |access-date=20 August 2022 |language=en}}</ref> [[Learning theory (education)|Learning theories]] focus primarily on how learning takes place and formulate the proper methods of teaching based on these insights.<ref name="BritannicaLearning"/> One of them is apperception or [[Associationism|association theory]], which understands the [[mind]] primarily in terms of [[Association (psychology)|associations]] between ideas and experiences. On this view, the mind is initially a [[blank slate]]. Learning is a form of developing the mind by helping it establish the right associations. [[Behaviorism]] is a more externally oriented learning theory. It identifies learning with [[classical conditioning]], in which the learner's behavior is shaped by presenting them with a stimulus with the goal of evoking and solidifying the desired [[Stimulus–response model|response pattern to this stimulus]].<ref name="Peel2020"/><ref name="Murphy2003"/><ref name="BritannicaLearning">{{cite web |title=Learning theory |last1=Kimble |first1=Gregory A. |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/learning-theory |website=www.britannica.com |access-date=20 August 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

The choice of which specific method is best to use depends on various factors, such as the subject matter and the learner's age.<ref name="Peel2020"/><ref name="Murphy2003"/> 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 [[Motivation#Intrinsic and extrinsic|intrinsic or extrinsic motivation]].<ref name="Peel2020"/> 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.<ref name="Peel2020"/>

==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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Thomas S. Kuhn |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-S-Kuhn |website=www.britannica.com |access-date=21 August 2022 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Bird2018"/> 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.<ref name="Herrman2009"/><ref name="Mills2014"/><ref name="Spirkin1983"/>

In [[computer science]], an algorithm is a procedure or methodology to reach the [[Problem solving|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.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Angius |first1=Nicola |last2=Primiero |first2=Giuseppe |last3=Turner |first3=Raymond |title=The Philosophy of Computer Science: 3. Algorithms |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/#Algo |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=21 August 2022 |date=2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Algorithm |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/algorithm |website=www.britannica.com |access-date=21 August 2022 |language=en}}</ref> For example, the [[Euclidean algorithm]] is an algorithm that solves the problem of finding the [[greatest common divisor]] of two [[integer]]s. It is based on simple steps like comparing the two numbers and subtracting one from the other.<ref>{{cite web |title=Euclidean algorithm |url=https://www.britannica.com/science/Euclidean-algorithm |website=www.britannica.com |access-date=21 August 2022 |language=en}}</ref>

==See also==
* {{annotated link|Paradigm}}
* [[Philosophical methodology]]
* [[Political methodology]]
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Software development process]]
* [[Survey methodology]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==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). [http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415490801/ ''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), [http://www.ssrn.com/author=510356 online].
* Howell, K. E. (2013) Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology. London, UK: Sage Publications.
* Ndira, E. Alana, Slater, T. and Bucknam, A. (2011). ''[http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book235125 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.&nbsp;Q. (2002). ''Qualitative research&nbsp;& 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. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ENDpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT23 Handbook of Research Methods in Military Studies] New York: Routledge.
* {{cite journal|pmc=1182327 |year=2005 |last1=Ioannidis |first1=J. P. |title=Why Most Published Research Findings Are False |journal=PLOS Medicine |volume=2 |issue=8 |pages=e124 |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 |pmid=16060722 |doi-access=free }}

==External links==
{{commons category|Methodology}}{{wikiquote}}
* [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/methodology Freedictionary], usage note on the word Methodology
* [http://www.researcherbook.com/ Researcherbook], research methodology forum and resources

{{World view}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Methodology| ]]