4: Methodology and Authenticity
I suppose my driving question while completing this week’s readings was “What is the nature of the methodology debate”? It seems to me that each argument is based on the notion of authenticity. In the qualitative vs. quantitative binary, advocates of qualitative research are skeptical that a system of numbers can applied “to human behavior”; they feel that such analysis is unrealistic and perhaps detrimental to the thinking, feeling humans behind the data and who consume the data (Porter and Sullivan 309). Advocates of quantitative research are skeptical about the trustworthiness of that ethnographic studies because they involve too many subjective decisions and relationships. The real question seems to be, what’s more real—what’s more generalizable—quantifying human behavior by looking at a few specific behaviors of many people or detailing experiences about a certain human behavior by looking at the range of behaviors of just a few people. Of course, the answer, as suggested by each of our theoretical readings is balance: we should work towards a pluralistic methodology. Another answer implied by each reading is that we should also work toward complete honesty of reasoning for methodology in detailed methods sections of research studies.
With an obvious chip on her shoulder, Charney writes “Insisting that any result short of Universal Truth and Certainty is a failure on science’s terms, the critics conclude that objective methods are a sham and that scientific knowledge cannot grow” (286). I often feel that statistics are presented to the public as “Universal Truth and Certainty [of our Overlord Science],” so the problem to me is not in the methodology itself but the way it’s presented. Very often (as consumers of news research), we are fed facts and numbers and graphs that show significant phenomena without the help of a detailed, honest (or remotely entertaining) account of why certain methods were chosen and what possible misinterpretations could occur. The only reason I think I am drawn more frequently to qualitative studies is because they are 1) refreshingly transparent about their methods and 2) entertaining because of this credibility, relateability, and admission to the fact that people make errors. I think quantitative studies could have the same qualities, but for whatever reason, they are at times dry.
In the study of cocaine users I mentioned in class, Patricia A. Adler directly states, “The methods I used to study this group were direct and personal. With my husband as a research partner . . . I participated in many of their activities, partying with them, attending social gatherings, traveling with them, and watching them plan and execute their business activities” (46). I don’t think Adler admits to doing cocaine, but it also isn’t denied, either. Admitting so may have been a problem to the much looser guidelines for study in 1993. In any case, I appreciate the honesty, and I believe her because of that. And, doesn’t her honesty make you want to discover her research with her?
I believe, also, that Sullivan and Porter call to “cut the BS” and be more authentic by calling for praxis instead of the theory/practice binary that “requires a fine, balancing judgment” and allows methodology to be called what it truly is, a heuristic (305). Acknowledging these truths about methodology, that it is indeed theory, we can use it as we see fit in each specific research circumstance, and we are free to discuss the reasons for our choices, whether using qualitative research because we simply prefer it or using convenient locations and samples. After all, what is truth and authenticity if not responding to the exact limitations and opportunities of a specific situation or question? What is it if not choosing to be aware of an audience that might not grasp what passing the t-test really means? What is it if not ethical?
Works Cited
Adler’s Study, Wheeling and Dealing.
Charney, Davida. “Empiricism is not a Four-Letter Word.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Suart A. Selber. New York: Oxford, 2004. 281-299. Print.
Porter, James E., and Patricia Sullivan. On Theory, Practice, and Method: Toward a Heuristic Research Methodology for Professional Writing. Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Suart A. Selber. New York: Oxford, 2004. 300-313. Print.