Hi all,
IMHO the problem of meaning of so called “methodology” is a little bit more
complicated than it can be estimated from the first sight. First of all this
term is rather new. It was brought into fashion in the beginning of the last
century. Neither Hegel nor Marx had ever used it. Certainly Ilyenkov knew
this term but never used it either.
In the strict sense this term derives to those philosophical schools which
suppose the thinking and the objective reality as something initially
distinct and independent of each other.
On the contrary according the Spinozian point of view there is no
methodology without theory. In other words a method can be comprehended only
as a reflection of theory, of “idea”. One can not discuss method in
abstracto. (For example a soviet philosopher G.P.Schedrovitsky pretended to
invent a universal abstract methodology applicable in any sphere.)
We can read at Spinoza’s “On the Improvement of the Understanding”
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/spinoza/Improvement.html
“…method is nothing else than reflective knowledge, or the idea of an idea;
and that as there can be no idea of an idea --- unless an idea exists
previously, --- there can be no method without a pre-existent idea.”
That is why Ilyenkov - a consistent spinozist - never used term
“methodology” as well as “epistemology”. From his POV the only possible
“methodology”, “epistemology” or “the theory of knowledge” is dialectic. But
real, genuine dialectic is impossible in abstraction from real, concrete
theoretical or practical process.
We can find a fragment in Ilyenkov’s “Dialectical logic” “...Marx, Engels,
and Lenin established that it was dialectics, and only dialectics, that was
the real logic in accordance with which modern thought made progress. It was
it, too, that operated at the ‘growing points’ of modern science, although
the representatives of science were not wholly conscious of the fact. That
was why logic as a science coincided (merged) not only with dialectics but
also with the theory of knowledge of materialism. ‘In Capital Marx applied
to a single science logic, dialectics, and the theory of knowledge of
materialism (three words are not needed; it is one and the same thing),’ is
how Lenin categorically formulated it.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essay9.htm
As for Vygotsky who used this term the situation is much more complex.
Indeed we can find the terms “methodology” as well as “dialectic” in
Vygotsky’s theoretical luggage. But the division of his theoretic heritage
into theoretic and methodologic halves is extremely unproductive. He has
advanced in theory as far as in methodology, and vice versa.
Cheers,
Sasha
Alexander V. Surmava, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
The Russian State University for the Humanities
The Vygotsky Institute of Psychology
Liapidevskogo str. 8-2-274
125581 Moscow, Russia
tel./fax: 7 (095) 455-88-24
mob.: 7 903 579-19-20
e-mail: monada@netvox.ru
monada@voxnet.ru
ICQ: 84411775
http://www.voxnet.ru/~monada
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Carol Macdonald
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 2:34 PM
> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Method/Methodology
>
> Hi,
> I don't have a reference except for Wertsch (1979) ACTIVITY THEORY but
> we make a very strong distinction at our university, and regard
> methodology as the study of method, or metatheory, and method as the
> specific method adopted in a particular study. Margaret Donaldson, who
> was my Ph D supervisor two decades ago explained the distinction to me,
> and so I wrote about method in my little studies I did then.
> Carol
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of Ares, Nancy
> Sent: 17 August 2005 07:34 PM
> To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> Cc: Franz Breuer
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Method/Methodology
>
> although the chapter below is not particular to cultural historical
> theory,
> Harding presents a very clear distinction between method and
> methodology,
> making a strong case for attending to methodology in terms of
> epistemology;
> philosophies of knowledge, knowers, and knowing; and theory to
> distinguish
> research paradigms, rather than simply to methods that are
> characteristic.
>
>
> Harding, S. (1987). Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In
> S.
> Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology: Social science issues (pp.
> 1-13).
> Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
>
> Nancy Ares
> Assistant Professor
> Teaching & Curriculum
> The Warner Graduate School of Education
> and Human Development
> University of Rochester
> P.O. Box 270425
> Rochester, NY 14627
> 585-273-5957
> fax 585-473-7598
>
> > ----------
> > From: Wolff-Michael Roth
> > Reply To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:23 PM
> > To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Cc: Franz Breuer
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Method/Methodology
> >
> > Is there anyone from Germany on this list? I know German scholar love
> > to use expressions like "methodisch-methodologisch". I will copy this
> > message to a friend in Germany, Franz Breuer, a qualitatively working
> > psychologist and co-editor of the online journal FQS: FORUM
> QUALITATIVE
> > SOZIALFORSCHUNG / FORUM QUALITATIVE SOCIAL RESEARCH.
> >
> > In my book on research method that is going to be published this or
> > next week, I point out that methodology is something like the science
> > of method, as distinct to the particular method you use in enacting a
> > project. More so, I think it is important to practice method for
> > graduate students rather than merely to read methodologies, treatises
> > that conceptualize different ways of doing research. . .
> >
> > I think there is a greater penchant in Germany, for example, to do
> real
> > methodological work, as you can find it in Stegmüller (1974), who
> > distinguishes different ways of conducting historical research, etc.
> >
> > Stegmüller, W. (1974). Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie
>
> > und Analytischen Philosophie, Band I: Wissenschaftliche Erklärung und
> > Begründung[Problems and results of a theory of science and analytical
> > philosophy, volume 1: Scientific explication and explanation]. Berlin:
>
> > Springer-Verlag.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps we can get Franz to assist us on this list?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > On 17-Aug-05, at 10:16 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
> >
> > > A visiting colleague has rasied the issue of the distinction between
>
> > > method
> > > and methodology in a cultural-historical
> > > perspective. I do not know offhand of any good written discussions
> of
> > > this
> > > distinction although I think it is important.
> > > Can anyone help?
> > > mike
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 01 2005 - 01:00:09 PDT