Dr Brainerd Prince
In our previous article, we discussed the "yellow bucket" of methodology, discussing how methodology pertains to both the eyes and the hands of research. The eyes represent conceptual frameworks — the lenses through which we view our research object — and the hands symbolise methods. These frameworks are crucial, as they provide the researcher a novel way of analysing data and developing fresh arguments.We concluded that when our research is incremental, we work within established frameworks, leading to modest changes in existing discourses. However, in disruptive research, where the goal is to offer a new interpretation or perspective, frameworks become essential because they provide the necessary structure and language to reimagine the research object.
In today’s article, I would like to move from frameworks to methods. Once we’ve clarified the research question (of the red bucket), defined sub-questions, and set clear research objectives, the next step is choosing the appropriate methods for data collection and analysis.
It’s common in both the sciences and social sciences to begin research by focusing on methods. After all, methods seem to be the most tangible part of research. We often hear supervisors say, “Go collect some data.” If the research is qualitative, the advice might be to conduct interviews,and if the research is predominantly quantitative then to design a survey. There is a tendency to believe that data will reveal patterns and that a clearer research question or theoretical framework can be developed later, once there’s something to analyse. However, in my understanding of research — both its philosophy and practice — this approach turns the process upside down. It’s like putting the cart before the horse and expecting the cart to lead.
The model of research I advocate emphasises that the process must begin with the researcher’s passion and genuine curiosity. Research is a search — a quest driven by the desire to explore a real question. This leads us to identify gaps in the literature, propose hypotheses, and seek insights from our research object. In this context, data collection serves the purpose of advancing our hypothesis and argument, rather than being an end in itself.
At this stage, once we have clarity on the research question, the objectives, and the framework, we can turn our attention to data collection. It’s critical to recognise that the strength of any research lies in the quality of the data collected and the rigour of its analysis. So, how do we choose the right methods for our data collection and analysis? The choice of methods depends entirely on the nature of the data we seek to collect, which in turn depends on the object of research. This brings us back to the research object — what exactly are we studying?
In the human sciences, the object of research can take many forms. It might be texts, people, practices, phenomena, communities or processes. It could even be actions — either of the researcher or a community. Consider my research, for example, where I raised questions about the nature of religion and its relationship to secularism. I hypothesised that Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy could provide answers to these questions. The object of research could have taken several forms.
First, the research could have been historical, focusing on Sri Aurobindo’s life and work, examining his historical context and the intellectual currents of his time. This approach would have involved archival research, analysing documents and other sources to uncover new insights. The novelty of the research could have come from identifying previously overlooked documents or reinterpreting existing sources in light of new evidence.
Alternatively, I could have taken an ethnographic approach, studying the communities that follow Aurobindo’s teachings. This would involve observing these communities, participating in their practices, and collecting data on how Aurobindo’s ideas are lived and embodied by his followers. The focus here would be on understanding the social and cultural practices through which his philosophy continues to influence people today.
A third option would have been to conduct a philosophical enquiry, examining Aurobindo’s writings in detail. This would require a deep engagement with his texts, analysing them within the broader context of philosophical ideas both in his time and in the present day. This method would involve extensive reading and critical analysis, aiming to uncover new interpretations of his ideas. This is the object of research and method that I ultimately chose.
These three approaches — historical, ethnographic, and philosophical — are fundamentally different in terms of the object of research and the methods required. Historical research would require archival methods, ethnographic research would involve fieldwork and participant observation, and philosophical inquiry would be a largely text-based endeavour. The choice of method is, therefore, contingent on the nature of the research object.
There’s also the possibility of action research, where the researcher intervenes in a community and studies the effects of that intervention. For instance, I could have joined the AurobindoAshram, introduced a new practice, and observed how the community responded. The method in this case would be action research, where the cycle of intervention and observation is repeated to generate insights.
It is worth noting that methods must align with the object of research. And here, it’s important to issue a word of caution: it’s tempting to try and study multiple objects of researchwithin the same project — people, texts, practices — but this can lead to a superficial engagement with each. It’s better to focus on one object of research and engage with it deeply, using appropriate methods. Trying to juggle too many objects of research at once can result in a scattered and unfocused study, where the strength of the argument is diluted.
How is research conducted in the sciences? In the sciences, research is often experimental. The object of research is mostly the experiment itself. Researchers propose a hypothesis, design an experiment to test it, and then analyse the data collected to get results. In technology research, the method might involve building something — a piece of software or a hardware device. The research findings are often based on the process of innovation and the outcomes of the experiment.
In both the sciences and social sciences, methods follow established patterns. One of the most common methods in social sciences is the mixed-method approach, which combines both qualitative and quantitative data. Some research is purely qualitative, focusing on in-depth insights into human experiences, while other studies are strictly quantitative, dealing with numbers, predictions, and statistical analysis.
Quantitative research typically involves surveys, experiments, or structured observations that yield measurable data. We are witnessing a renewed interest in applying quantitative methods to human sciences. The 19th-century philosopher Auguste Comte attempted to apply scientific methods to the study of human societies, and we might benefit from revisiting his approach today. A new "Comtean" revolution could help us leverage quantitative methods in the study of human behaviour and social phenomena.
Qualitative research, on the other hand, involves methods such as interviews, focus group discussions, and participant observation. The aim is to gain a deep understanding of human experiences. While some may view qualitative research as less rigorous than quantitative methods, this is a misconception. Both approaches involve assumptions and constraints. In qualitative research, we treat words and meanings as data, while in quantitative research, we work with numbers. The two methods often complement each other: qualitative research can provide the context and depth behind the numbers, while quantitative research can offer statistical validity to qualitative insights.
One of the key concepts in qualitative research is "thick description," a term coined by Clifford Geertz. Thick description involves going beyond the surface level of human behaviour to explore the deeper meanings and motivations behind it. The depth of engagement with the research object determines the strength of the qualitative analysis. To ensure the robustness of qualitative findings, researchers often use the method of triangulation, which involves collecting data from multiple sources to verify the insights. This helps to overcome biases and ensures that the research is not overly reliant on a single perspective.
As technology advances, so too must our research methods. Researchers today need to incorporate AI, data science, and other cutting-edge tools into their methodology. These technologies have the potential to revolutionise both qualitative and quantitative research, offering new ways to collect, analyse, and interpret data.
Having said that, in the next article, we will look at specific research methods, exploring their strengths and weaknesses, and offering guidance on how to choose the right method for your research. For now, the key takeaway is that methods are tools — they should be selected and applied thoughtfully, based on the research question, framework, and,most importantly, the object of research.
Dr Brainerd Prince is an Associate Professor and Director of the Centre for Thinking, Language, and Communication (CTLC) at Plaksha University, Mohali.
