Talk:Multimethodology

Heading/subhead issue

I notice that the article has a heading for philosophical positions but proceeds to list some prominent philosophers rather than being oriented to these positions. I propose to reorganize this bit to emphasize the positions. Also, I think it would make sense to leave space for more positions that support mixed methods work (beyond pragmatism, though it's popular, it's not the only one).Kaylea Champion (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I made some changes to try to address this issue, perhaps other folks have thoughts on how well that went....now the article begs the question, what about non-pragmatist approaches? Kaylea Champion (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 3 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yelenna Rondon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Conclusion

While I agree with the statement in the conclusion that multimethodology is indeed the way to go, this isn't a universal agreement (as is even pointed out in the Criticism section), and there are no citations for this section. I don't know enough about multimethodology to edit this section (right now), but perhaps someone more familiar with the topic can rewrite it so it's more neutral. Ekaune (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean -- there seem to be three paragraphs that don't really fit in to this article, two that are a bit off-topic and tend toward the opinionated rather than the encyclopedic:

"A research strategy is a procedure for achieving a particular intermediary research objective — such as sampling, data collection, or data analysis. We may therefore speak of sampling strategies or data analysis strategies. The use of multiple strategies to enhance construct validity (a form of methodological triangulation) is now routinely advocated by methodologists. In short, mixing or integrating research strategies (qualitative and/or quantitative) in any and all research undertaking is now considered a common feature of good research.

A research approach refers to an integrated set of research principles and general procedural guidelines. Approaches are broad, holistic (but general) methodological guides or roadmaps that are associated with particular research motives or analytic interests. Two examples of analytic interests are population frequency distributions and prediction. Examples of research approaches include experiments, surveys, correlational studies, ethnographic research, and phenomenological inquiry. Each approach is ideally suited to addressing a particular analytic interest. For instance, experiments are ideally suited to addressing nomothetic explanations or probable cause; surveys — population frequency descriptions, correlations studies — predictions; ethnography — descriptions and interpretations of cultural processes; and phenomenology — descriptions of the essence of phenomena or lived experiences."

...and then later in the section, the tone of this bit feels off to me, and probably needs to be reworked quite a bit and woven into a different section....

"A word of caution about the term "multimethodology". It has become quite common place to use the terms "method" and "methodology" as synonyms (as is the case with the above entry). However, there are convincing philosophical reasons for distinguishing the two. "Method" connotes a way of doing something — a procedure (such as a method of data collection). "Methodology" connotes a discourse about methods — i.e., a discourse about the adequacy and appropriateness of particular combination of research principles and procedures. The terms methodology and biology share a common suffix "logy." Just as bio-logy is a discourse about life — all kinds of life; so too, methodo-logy is a discourse about methods — all kinds of methods. It seems unproductive, therefore, to speak of multi-biologies or of multi-methodologies. It is very productive, however, to speak of multiple biological perspectives or of multiple methodological perspectives."

I think probably the right thing to do is remove the first two paragraphs unless I can find them a home in their own topical page and rework information from the third into other parts while cutting it down to a sentence or two. I'll let this sit for a week in case anyone is watching this page and wants to comment. Kaylea Champion (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction

An article I am reading (Onwuegbuzie, Anthony and Nancy Leech. 2005) notes that postmodernists criticize the 'compability thesis' (which seems to be the same as multimethodology). Yet the previous version of the article, seemingly based on the Mingers and Brocklesby (1997) article, notes that 'Multimethodology fits well with postmodernism'. Can somebody more familiar with those themes address this contradiction?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)