“Methods” and “Methodology” — Just Academic Lingo?

I have set myself a challenge to write from a single word prompt every day for 30 days in 1 hour. This is Day 1. Today’s word is; ‘methodology’.

As a science researcher who writes academic text, I always thought ‘methodology’ was just academic speak for ‘methods’. In this sense, I could write my materials and methods section and title it as ‘Methodologies’ and it would sound fancy and pretentious. And I would appear intelligent…

But just like it is wrong to use gloriously discombobulating words unnecessarily in research papers, it also turns out this use of ‘methodology’ would be wrong.

Method vs methodology definitions

Lets start by looking at how these words are defined. (I love a good rummage in a dictionary. Alas, I left home without looking this morning, so the online version will have to do.)

Here’s what Collins had to say about methods and methodologies:

method; “the techniques or arrangement of work for a particular field or subject”

and

methodology; “the system of methods and principles used in a particular discipline”

Or as Claude put it to me more poetically:

Methods are like your dance moves

Methodology is your whole approach to getting groovy on the dance floor

And if that wasn’t visually clear enough:

Methods are the individual LEGO bricks you’re using

Methodology is your grand vision for why you’re building a space station instead of a pirate ship

Methods are the ‘what’ and the ‘how’

In essence, methods are the somewhat vague, ‘what we did’, descriptions we know, love and often ignore, in most research papers. They outline where the research took place, what the researchers did, in what order and what controls were in place to make sure the results mean something.

I was always told that “someone else should be able to repeat your methods exactly”. I now know that this advice was … not accurate.

Methods in research papers are, generally speaking, not super repeatable but instead allow us to make a judgement about relevance to the work. I often feel there is an underlying assumption that, as readers, we must understand the benefits and limitations of the techniques used without it being explicitly stated in the methods. As a peer researcher I do generally grasp these, but as a lay person reading, this ‘between the lines’ information would not be apparent.

This is just one example of why research papers can be … a little dense… to those who aren’t shoulder deep in the research.

Having a methodology would help solve this problem.

Methodology is the ‘why’

A methodology brings those underlying assumptions and limitations we may not be aware of into the light. These are not often explicitly stated in papers. Now I understand how a methodology differs from methods, I feel it is an under utilised section of writing.

The correct way to use a methodology would be if I discuss why I am using the methods. Like perhaps why I’m using a certain one over another, or why the one I used was appropriate in the circumstances.

It’s all in the ‘ology’

If we think what ‘ology’ refers to, it means essentially ‘to study’. With a methodology section, we are therefore ‘studying’ the methods. A whole PhD thesis could be devoted to methodologies. I suspect, what started out as my ‘Methods’ chapter — and which seemed somewhat clunky and verbose in the first instance — is in fact a ‘Methodology’ chapter. This will be where I can discuss the methods and for a thesis will be a very valuable reflection chapter on why I did certain things.

So there you have it! Methods are the how and methodologies are the why.

I really enjoyed doing this word-a-day prompt. Join me again tomorrow for the next instalment, when my word will be ‘synthesis’.