Methodology & Methods 101

Methodology… methods… what exactly is the difference?

These words often get thrown around interchangeably. However, their meanings are distinct and you can save yourself some revisions in the examination process (and when publishing) by making sure you use them correctly and consistently in your thesis and other writings.

My favourite analogy to help illustrate the difference between methodology and methods is that of the architect vs. the builder.

An architect works on the level of plans, theories, and calculations. Her tools are pencils and compasses (or the digital equivalents thereof). She makes sure everything is mapped out and arranged for the best chance of success in the construction process.

A builder, on the other hand, has a very practical job. Her tools are hammers and nails. She takes the plans from the architect and, by gathering and working on her building materials, she turns something that is only ‘on paper’ into a real, tangible product.

In the same way, your methodology acts to guide your methods. It is the plan, the theory, the ‘on paper’ version of what you will do; while your methods are the actual tools you will use to make it happen. Think of this as the difference between conceptualising the research (methodology) versus actually executing it (methods).

Methodologies can be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed; but there’s a lot more to it than that. Here are some examples of research methodologies and methods – though note that any categorisations, including these, can be contested!

The SAGE Research Methods database has an interactive ‘methods map‘ where you can explore the relationships between these concepts and dig deeper into specific methodologies or methods that interest you.

Aligning your Methodology & Methods

OK, so now we’re clear(ish) on the difference between methodology and methods – now it’s time to make sure they make sense together!

Imagine an architect designs a beautiful brick house, but the builder turns up with only hammer and nails. For many other types of houses, a hammer and nails would be the appropriate tools for the job. But for this brick house, they are totally wrong; the builder actually needed trowels and mortar.

The same applies for methods. There is no such thing as the ‘best’ research methods because that will completely depend on what type of blueprint you’re working to – i.e. what methodology you have chosen.

This is sometimes described as ‘methodological coherence’ and examiners and reviewers will consider it carefully. If you’re doing lots of reading on your chosen methodology (and reading other research conducted within that same methodology), it will become apparent which methods are normally used. That doesn’t necessarily preclude others; but it does give you an idea of where to start (and what to discuss with your supervisor/s).

It’s also important to make a deliberate, reasoned decision as to your research methods. Yes, there will be methods that are more commonly used within a particular methodology; but that alone is not a good reason to choose them. There should be a project-specific justification for your chosen method/s: “shifting the emphasis away from ‘method for method’s sake’ to a consideration of a more reflective, thoughtful research practitioner” (Holloway & Todres, 2003).

Articulating your Methodology & Methods

One common mistake when writing about methodology and methods (particularly in journal articles where word counts can be tight) is to describe either methodology or methods, thereby neglecting the other. This is a problem because readers need to see how they work together:

• A reader who understands your methodology but not your methods may have little insight into how you actually collected or analysed your data, and therefore cannot be confident in your results.
• A reader who understands your methods but not your methodology will struggle to identify the philosophical underpinnings of your research, and will not be able to assess how you have approached your research design or whether your methods were well-chosen.

In their paper on this issue, Harvey et al. show examples of methodology sections in published papers that (in their view) actually describe just the methods (2023, p,99).

Confusingly, though, there is a lot of variation between disciplines and even specific publications. For example, fields that lean more toward positivism (there is a single objective reality!) may require a lot more detail on methods, and expect less on the underpinning philosophies. Some journals in these fields do not distinguish between methodology and methods in their guidelines, and ask instead for a level of detail that would enable other researchers to replicate the study.

Conversely, fields that lean more toward interpretivism (there are multiple subjective realities!) tend to expect heavy emphasis on methodology because the philosophies that underpin the production of knowledge in those fields have an enormous influence on what is found and reported. Some journals will request a written description of the methodology and methods, whereas others will require a checklist or standardised reporting such as a COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) or SRQR (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research).

It can be helpful to scrutinise your own written descriptions of your methodology and methods to ensure that you are giving sufficient detail on each relative to the expectations of your field, and delivering what the thesis or publication requires.

Epistemologies, Frameworks, and Paradigms, Oh My!

But wait, there’s more!

We’ve only talked about two terms so far, but there are many more that are closely related – and they are often applied in different ways between (and within) disciplines.

If you are grappling with the differences between frameworks, paradigms, epistemologies, ontologies, methodologies, and methods, then you may find value in doing some reading on how these terms are applied in your field.

For example, Michael Crotty, in his highly influential book The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process (1998), offers a very approachable and plain language description of how these terms can function in the social sciences. It’s available to read physically or online in the AUT Library.

A note though: none of these terms exist on stable ground. Definitions shift and flex, applications vary, and the terms themselves are often contested. (Academics debating things? But of course!) As an emerging postgraduate researcher, the key thing is to read – genuinely read with human eyes – to build a deep understanding of how the language of research design is used in your field.

References

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Allen & Unwin.

Harvey, O., Regmi, P. R., Mahato, P., Adhikari, S. D., Dhital, R., & van Teijlingen, E. (2023). Methods or Methodology: Terms That Are Too Often Confused. Journal of Education and Research, 13(2), 94-105. https://doi.org/10.51474/jer.v13i2.716

Holloway, I., & Todres, L. (2003). The Status of Method: Flexibility, Consistency and Coherence. Qualitative Research, 3(3), 345-357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794103033004