Despite the huge literature on the methodology of the social sciences, relatively little interest has been shown in sociological description of social science research methods in practice, i.e., in the application of sociology to sociological work. The overwhelming (if not exhaustive) interest in research methods is an evaluative and prescriptive one. This is particularly surprising, since the sociology of science has in the past few decades scrutinised almost every aspect of natural science methodology. Ethnographic and historical case studies have moved from an analysis of the products of science to investigations of the processes of scientific work in the laboratory. Social scientists appear to have been rather reluctant to explore this aspect of their own work in any great depth.
In this paper, we report on a ‘methodography’, an empirical study of research methods in practice. This took the form of a small-scale investigation of the working practices of two groups of social scientists, one with a predominantly qualitative approach, the other involved in statistical modelling. The main part of the paper involves a comparison between two brief episodes taken from the work of each, one focussing on how two researchers analyse and draw conclusions from an interview transcript, the other on how collaborators work out an agreed final version of a statistical model for combining temporal and spatial data. Based on our analysis of these examples, we raise some questions about the way in which social scientists reason through their problems, and the role that characterisations of research, as research of a particular kind (e.g., qualitative or quantitative), play in actual research practice.
AndersonR. J.HughesJ. A., and SharrockW. W. (1985). The Sociology Game: An Introduction to Sociological Reasoning. London: Longman.
2.
BergmanM. M. (2008) ‘The straw men of the qualitative-quantitative divide and their influence on mixed methods research’, in BergmanM. M. (eds.), Advances in Mixed Methods Research: Theories and Applications. London: Sage.
3.
BuchlerJ. (1961). The Concept of Method. New York: Columbia University Press.
4.
CliffordJ. and MarcusG. E. (Eds.) (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
CoserL. A. (1971). Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
6.
DoingP. (2008) ‘Give me a laboratory and I will raise a discipline: The past, present, and future politics of laboratory studies in STS’, in HackettE. J.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM., and WajcmanJ. (eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Third Ed.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
FrancisD. W. and HartC. (1997) ‘Narrative intelligibility and membership categorization in a television commercial’, in HesterS. and EglinP. (eds.) Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
8.
GoffmanE. (1961). Encounters. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
9.
GreiffenhagenC. and SharrockW. (2011) ‘Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back?’Social Studies of Science41 (6) 839–866.
10.
HackingI. (2002 [1992]) ‘‘Style’ for historians and philosophers’, in Historical Ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Originally published 1992, in Studies in History and Philosophy23 (1) 1–20.
11.
HammersleyM. (1992) ‘Deconstructing the qualitative-quantitative divide’, in BrannenJ. (eds.), Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Aldershot, Ashgate.
12.
HammondP. E. (Ed.) (1964). Sociologists at Work: Essays on the Craft of Social Research. New York: Basic Books.
13.
HesterS. and FrancisD. (1994) ‘Doing data: The local organization of a sociological interview’, British Journal of Sociology45 (4) 675–695.
14.
Houtkoop-SteenstraH. (2000). Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview: The Living Questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
CetinaKnorr K. (1995) ‘Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science’, in JasanoffS.MarkleG. E.PetersenJ. C., and PinchT. (eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
16.
LawJ.RuppertE.SavageM. (2011). The double social life of methods. CRESC Working Paper Series No. 95.
17.
LeaheyE. (2008) ‘Methodological memes and mores: Toward a sociology of social research’, Annual Review of Sociology (34) 33–53.
18.
LynchM. (1993). Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
MahoneyJ. and GoertzG. (2006). ‘A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research’, Political Analysis14 (3) 227–249.
20.
MalinowskiM. (1967). A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
21.
MaynardD. W.Houtkoop-SteenstraH.SchaefferN. C., and van der ZouwenJ. (Eds.) (2002). Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction and Practice in the Survey Interview. New York: Wiley.
22.
MedawarP. B. (1963) ‘Is the scientific paper a fraud?’, The Listener 70 (September 12), 377–378.
23.
RapleyT. J. (2001) ‘The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analysing interviews’, Qualitative Research1 (3) 303–323.
24.
SmithD. E. (1990). Texts, Facts and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling. London: Routledge.
25.
SnowC. P. (1959). The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
SuchmanL. and JordanB. (1990) ‘Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews’, Journal of the American Statistical Association85 (409) 232–241.
27.
WilliamsM. D. (2002). The Ethnography of an Anthropology Department (1959–1979): An Academic Village. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
28.
WittgensteinL. (1953). Philosophical Investigations (Translated by AnscombeG.E.M.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.