The importance of methodology
A term that has bothered me, and I am sure would have troubled many others, is ‘methodology’. What exactly does it mean? How important is it in research? The confusion regarding the meaning of this term and its implications is not without meaning in itself. For in research, confusion reigns, and every choice, no matter how insignificant, has implications. Methodology is, to put it as simply, an answer to: ‘why are we doing what we are doing?’ Why are we choosing historical-analytical method and not content analysis? That is, why are we preferring one research method over another? Why are we relying on postmodernism and not critical theory? That is, why are we grounding our work in a particular theory? Why are we choosing to work on India and not Sri Lanka? That is, why are we choosing one field over another? Why are we asking questions about security and not about economics? That is, why are our research questions the way they are? To put these questions other way: what is the criteria for exclusion and inclusion in our research — of ideas, concepts, pieces of literature, fieldwork areas, methods, theories and even phrases. There are uncountable choices to be made during a research work, be it a article or a thesis. And research works are written for others to read, critique and engage with. Methodology then is about documenting every choice and the rationale behind it; it is about incorporating that rationale into the finished research product. Why does it matter? For the reader to understand why do we write this, or find that result, an explicit methodology may help.
Sciences versus social sciences
The importance of methodology for the sciences is well understood. Any research study in sciences should ideally be able to get replicated and verified independently by scholars in any corner of the world. And methodology plays an indispensable role in this peer review and validation process. In laboratory experiments generally, the environment and a lot of variables involved can be manipulated by researchers. This makes replication possible (with some limitations). Things are, however, very different in social sciences. It is a study of the social realm, which is, to a large extent, abstract. The environment or the variables cannot be manipulated like in the lab; things have to be generally studied as they are. While replication and verification of results may not work for social sciences as it does for the sciences, methodology does not loose its importance. This is because while the researcher’s biases are difficult to minimize in the social sciences, at least it can be made explicit. How? Just simply tell the reader why you make every crucial choice in your research. No choice in a research should be arbitrary or whimsical. Since there is no correct or incorrect result(s) in social sciences research, unlike sciences, methodology (and not results per se) assume greater importance. When there are thousands of metaphorical paths to be travelled based on thousands of choices at every nook and corner, to expect two social sciences researchers to travel the same path, or to reach the same destination, is very rare — next to impossible. It may then help the cause of research if social science researchers have solid methodology and make it clear to the reader which path — and why — they have followed. The reader may try, by doing a thought experiment or a fieldwork, to follow the same path or make a detour as and when it suits. But, unlike sciences, travelling the exact same path may not be possible. The insurmountable hurdles of bias, not-in-hand environmental factors come into play.
While methodology’s importance is clear to many, having a good one in a research work is difficult, very difficult. But try a researcher must— for the cause of academic excellence as much as for elegance.
