HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John Worth <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:55:44 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
I tend to think of methods/methodology as the overall strategy designed to
answer a research question, while techniques are the specific tools employed
within that strategy.  Methodology acts as a bridge between techniques
(fieldwork, labwork, analysis, etc.) and the over-arching theoretical
construct within which any particular project is situated.  Methodology
helps organize and operationalize the techniques to be employed in gathering
empirical data, allowing them to contribute more meaningfully to broader
theoretical generalizations.

John Worth
Univ. of West Florida

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:24 PM, geoff carver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I've just been going through a whole pile of stuff from various sources,
> some of which refer to "method" or "methodology" and elsewhere of
> "technique." Some of this refers to fieldwork and some to fieldwork coupled
> with a wider interpretive framework. Now: when would people speak of
> technique and when of method or methodology, or are they interchangeable?
> Single Context Planning Method and trowelling technique, or would the study
> of everything from the way we shovel and push wheel barrows to doing
> documentation and taking photos be methodology? When would people use one
> or
> the other?
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2