Methods and Their Place in a Design
One sentence defines methods, three obligations follow it, and three different slides give three different accounts of how methods relate to methodology. Work out which account you are using before you write your methodology chapter.
The definition, and what it leaves out
The supplied teaching source gives methods a single slide, titled "Methods". The definitional sentence on it is the only definition of the term in the week.
The definition is functional. A method is identified by what it does — it gathers data — and not by its form, its scale, its philosophical commitments or the kind of data it yields. That is a serviceable working definition and it is narrower than it looks.
Read strictly, it makes a method a collection technique only. Analysis techniques are excluded by the wording, which becomes awkward two slides later when the week's own catalogue of methods lists content analysis, secondary data analysis, and conversation or discourse analysis alongside interviewing and observation. Those are analytic techniques sitting under a definition about gathering. The catalogue and the labels attached to it are set out on The Method Catalogue.
Three obligations that attach to every method you use
The rest of the slide is instruction rather than definition. Three obligations follow the phrase "You need to".
What the source requires of you
Justify the data collection methods used
Stated as a bare requirement. As with the parallel requirement to justify the methodology, no criteria, structure, length or worked example of an acceptable justification appears anywhere in the week.
Append a copy of each method used
"Include in your proposal and report a copy of each data collection method used in the appendices." This is a requirement, applied without exception and with no page or length limit attached.
Include detail sufficient for three reader tasks
The reader must be able to fully understand the research project, critically engage with the research conducted, and validate the quality of the research. The obligation is on the level of detail, not on the format.
The second obligation is the one most often read too loosely. "Each data collection method" means every instrument you actually ran — the questionnaire as issued, the interview schedule as used, the observation protocol, the coding sheet, the document-selection criteria. A description of an instrument is not a copy of it. What goes in an appendix and how instruments are presented is covered in Appendices and Research Instruments.
THE APPENDIX REQUIREMENT, READ STRICTLY
| Instrument | What "a copy" means | What is not sufficient |
|---|---|---|
| Questionnaire | The full instrument as distributed, including instructions and routing | A list of the question topics, or the questions retyped without the response scales |
| Interview schedule | The prompts and probes as used, with any variation between rounds noted | A statement that interviews were semi-structured |
| Observation protocol | The recording form and the categories observed | A narrative account of what you looked for |
| Document selection | The inclusion and exclusion criteria applied and the resulting list | A sentence saying relevant documents were reviewed |
| Consent and information materials | The forms as issued to participants | A reference to a template held elsewhere |
Column one is a reading of the source's requirement applied to common instruments. The source names no instruments and sets no format; the requirement itself — a copy of each method used, in the appendices — is the source's.
The three reader tasks, and a conflict inside one of them
The third obligation is the most demanding, because it sets an external standard: your detail is sufficient when somebody else can do three specific things with it.
- "fully understand the research project" — a comprehension test, and the weakest of the three.
- "critically engage with the research conducted." — the reader must be able to argue with your choices, which requires knowing what the alternatives were and why you rejected them.
- "validate the quality of the research." — the reader must be able to form a judgement about whether the work is sound.
Nested, parallel, or both — three structures for one relationship
The relationship between methodology and methods is the load-bearing structure of any design chapter, and the week gives it three incompatible shapes across three slides.
THREE ACCOUNTS OF THE SAME RELATIONSHIP
| Where it appears | What it says | Structure implied |
|---|---|---|
| The methodology slide | "Data collection methods are a major part of the methodological framework for the research project." | Nested — methods are a component of methodology |
| The methods slide | "This refers to the techniques used to gather your data", introduced as a category of its own with its own obligations | Parallel — methods are a separate matter from methodology |
| The comparison table | "Methodology" and "Methods" appear as two distinct rows of the same table, with different content in each | Parallel and co-ordinate — two dimensions on which approaches differ |
All three appear within the same week's slide deck. The source never states which structure holds and never acknowledges the difference.
What follows when the two words are used interchangeably
The slippage is not hypothetical. It shows up inside the week's own materials, where the same term is filed under both headings on different slides.
Ethnography as a methodology
- The week's comparison table lists ethnomethodology, ethnography and action research in its Methodology row for the qualitative column
- That row also mixes in epistemic descriptors — inductive, subjective, intuitive — so entities and attributes share a cell
- Read this way, ethnography is a framework that governs a whole study
Ethnography as a method
- The week's catalogue of methods lists "Ethnography / participant observation" as a single grid cell among techniques such as focus groups and documentary analysis
- Read this way, ethnography is a data-gathering technique you could combine with others
- The pairing with participant observation is itself contested — a later week separates the two and makes one a component of the other
Three practical consequences follow, and they are worth pre-empting rather than discovering at examination.
- Your justification is aimed at the wrong level. A justification of ethnography as a methodology argues about paradigm, immersion and the nature of the knowledge produced. A justification of it as a method argues about access, duration and recording. Reviewers ask for whichever one you have not written.
- Your appendix obligation changes. If a technique is a method, the source requires a copy of it in the appendices. If the same word names your methodology, there is nothing to append and the obligation quietly disappears — which is a poor reason for calling something a methodology.
- Your comparison collapses. The week asks you to compare types of methods. A list that mixes methodologies with techniques cannot be compared on a single dimension, which is one reason no comparison is performed anywhere in the week.
Specifying a method so that it can actually be appended
The obligations imply a level of specification the week never demonstrates. The following sequence uses only requirements the source states — justification, a copy of the instrument, and detail sufficient for the three reader tasks — and is offered as synthesis.
Six lines per method
Name the method and the sense you are using
One line. If the term is used elsewhere as a methodology, say which sense you mean here and move on.
State what data it produces
Not what topic it covers — what you will physically hold afterwards. Transcripts, completed forms, field notes, a document set, a spreadsheet of counts.
Tie it to a part of the question
Name the sub-question this method answers. A method that cannot be tied to one is in the plan for another reason, usually thoroughness.
State the instrument and its status
Whether it is adapted from a cited source, built from scratch, or reused. This is the sentence that makes the appendix copy interpretable.
State where and from whom
Site, population and access position. The methodology decision names location and accessibility of data as an input, so it is already part of your design record.
State what would make it fail
Low response, refused access, unusable recordings. The source does not ask for this; a reader who is meant to critically engage with your work will look for it.
What to carry forward
- A method, in this material, is a technique used to gather data. That is the whole definition, and it is functional rather than formal.
- Every instrument you actually ran goes in the appendices as a copy. A description is not a copy.
- Your detail is sufficient when a reader can understand, argue with, and judge the work — the source's own three tests.
- Methods are nested inside methodology on one slide and parallel to it on two others. Choose a structure, declare it, and hold it.
- Where a term names both a methodology and a technique, say which sense you mean before you justify anything.
Frequently asked questions
How does this material define a research method?
In one sentence: it refers to the techniques used to gather your data. The definition is functional and says nothing about form, scale or the kind of data produced. Read strictly it covers collection only, which sits awkwardly with the week's own catalogue listing several analysis techniques as methods.
Do methods sit inside methodology or beside it?
The material says both. One slide states that data collection methods are a major part of the methodological framework, which nests them. Another introduces methods as a separate category, and a comparison table lists methodology and methods as two distinct rows. No slide reconciles the three accounts, so you have to choose a structure and declare it.
What exactly has to go in the appendices?
A copy of each data collection method used, in both the proposal and the report. The requirement is stated without exception and without any page or length limit. In practice that means the instruments as issued — the questionnaire, the interview schedule, the observation form — rather than descriptions of them.
How much detail about my methods is enough?
The source sets the standard by outcome rather than by length: enough for a reader to fully understand the project, critically engage with the research conducted, and validate its quality. The second test is the demanding one, because engaging critically requires knowing what alternatives you considered and why you set them aside.
Why does the same term appear as both a methodology and a method?
Because the material files it both ways without noticing. Ethnography appears in the methodology row of one comparison table and in the method catalogue of another slide. Nothing in the material resolves this, so state which sense you are using and keep it consistent through the write-up.
Does the material tell me how to choose between methods?
It offers a set of questions to ask yourself and a list of dependencies — topic type, skills and experience, access, time and ethics — but it never compares any two methods on any dimension. The catalogue of techniques is presented as bare labels with nothing attached, so the comparison work has to be done from another source.
References and source attribution
- O'Leary, Z. 2010, The essential guide to doing your research project, Sage Publications. (The source of the comparison table reproduced in this week, p. 105.)
- Bryman, A. 2016, Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Quinlan, C. 2011, Business Research Methods, 1st ed., Cengage Publishing. (Chapter 1, p. 50 is the source of the methodological pyramid referred to on this page.)
- Naoum, S. G. 2013, Dissertation Research & Writing for Construction Students, 3rd ed., Routledge.
- The supplied teaching source: consolidated weekly slide material and study notes on research design, used here as the basis for every statement attributed to "the source", "the week" or "the material".
Suggested questions for Ask KEVOS
- List every data collection instrument in my design and tell me which ones I have not yet drafted.
- Is the technique I have named a methodology or a method as this material uses the terms?
- Write a justification for each of my data collection methods against the source's own criteria.
- Check whether my methodology chapter treats methods as nested or parallel, and whether it does so consistently.
- What would a critical reader need from my methods section in order to argue with my findings?