>
> I'd like to say to you that here, in Brazil, there is an endless
> discussion on the different meanings of METHOD and METHODOLOGY: (1)
> some advocate METHOD and METHODOLOGY are synonymous. (2) for others,
> METHOD is "the way" and METHODOLOGY the sum of all "ways" or METHODS
> of approach to an object
Now, that's interesting, Ricardo (at least to me!). While I think of a
single method (or set of methods) as having a single methodology that
contextualizes it, in your view methodology names the relationship between
various methods. Or differently put, the unit of a methodology is
method+assumptions in the candidate I proposed, while in your candidate,
the unit of a methodology is a collection of methods.
So both could be right, if you assume that a given set of epistemological
assumptions could license a variety of methods. Then the methodology
would account both for the intimate connection between method and its
assumptions as well as for the connection of a given method to other
methods via those same assumptions.
Now having unified these (at least to my satisfaction), I'm wondering if
Mike will now come knock down my tower of blocks. :)
But Diane's definition is interesting too:
>i'm assuming method describes the what of inquiry, and methodology
>describes why the what is what it is... ?
My only problem is that there are a couple of whats to inquiry --
phenomena, for one, and then also how we examine/talk about those
phenomena (aka data and analysis). I am willing to buy, though, I think,
that methodology is the discourse that constitutes particular phenomena as
data as it prescribes particular discourses as legitimate means for
analysis. (or for whatever replaces analysis in a post-analytic approach
-- see, can't escape my discourses!)...
--Alena
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:01:36 PST