RE: [xmca] Method/Methodology

From: Andy Blunden (ablunden@mira.net)
Date: Sun Aug 21 2005 - 04:32:00 PDT


   But surely Sasha, isn't "Discourse on Method" roughly translated as
   "Methodology"? I agree with your conclusion that the study of any
   particular science is inseparable from the study of the method of that
   science, but I do question the recentness of the concept of
   "methodology." According to the OED, the word was first used in
   English in 1800 as "the methodology of medicine".
   Andy
   At 03:09 PM 21/08/2005 +0400, you wrote:

     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.ht
     ml
     “…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 di= alectic. 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
     [1]http://www.voxnet.ru/~monada
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [[2]mailto:xm ca-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
     [[3]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
> > > [4]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > [5]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> [6]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> [7]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
     _______________________________________________
     xmca mailing list
     xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
     [8]htt= p://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

    Andy Blunden= [9]http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm (61) 3 9380 9435

References

   1. 3D"http://www.voxnet.ru/~monada" 2. 3D"mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu"
   3. 3D"mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu" 4. 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 5. 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 6. 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 7. 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 8. 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca"
   9. 3D"http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm"_______________________________________________
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