Five Ws + H of Methodologist

• In Event: Methodologists, Who Needs 'Em?

Abstract

Purpose
Methodology has long been a contested site for questions about the nature of education research. For example, researchers have explored the public responsibilities and personal ethics of enacting certain methodologies (e.g., Hammersley, 2011; Kuntz, 2012; Leeper, 2018; Saldaña, 2018). However, opportunities remain to explore the figure of the “methodologist”—who can claim this title? when? where? by doing what (and how)? And why might the label “methodologist” be desirable/undesirable?

Perspective
In this presentation, we address the figure of the “methodologist” using an Aristotelian rhetorical heuristic later dubbed the “scholastic hexameter,” and often translated in contemporary terms as the five Ws + H: Who? When? Where? What? How? And Why? This heuristic allows one to describe and evaluate action in order to more intentionally undertake it: “for the one who acts in ignorance of any of them seems to act involuntarily” (Sloan, 2010). The hexameter, and its rhetorical precursors/descendants, thoroughly describe the circumstances for, and locate the crux of, an argument so that debaters might engage based on shared footing, rather than talking past each other. We employ this approach not to provide definitive answers about the figure of the “methodologist,” but rather to explore how each question reveals a particular rhetorical struggle regarding this label.

Mode of Inquiry
In elaborating the struggles revealed by the hexameter, we engage in collaborative rhetorical reasoning or shared inquiry (e.g., Booth, 1988; Moss, 1986). For each heuristic question, we explore the reasoning suggested by particular “cases”; in so doing, we seek to avoid disagreement based on principles alone (e.g., Toulmin, 1988). Each case reveals different assumptions and potentials entailed by locating the crux of the debate at this juncture (e.g., McIntyre, 1981). Indeed, though we share commitments to qualitative research, we bring diverse backgrounds, preparation, and our approach is intentionally pluralistic.

Data sources
Our presentation draws on our experiences as faculty members in a university college of education, engaged in teaching methodology courses and administering a graduate research-certificate program. For example, we address:
• who might be intentionally/unintentionally excluded when we label ourselves or our students as “methodologists,” and who claims or assigns this term
• what one must do to become (or to avoid becoming) a “methodologist”
• when and where one might be qualified to teach methodology courses
• by what means students might be credentialed for a certificate in research methodologies
• why one might apply the label “methodologist,” and what is gained and lost for whom by using this term in education coursework, dissertation committees, and job letters

Significance
In exploring the who, what/how, and when/where of the label “methodologist,” we illustrate why this label might be desirable/undesirable. We argue that using the label “methodologist” risks maintaining hierarchies within economies of representation and at the same time, it might invite us to consider how research methodologies fit with our own and others’ preferences, invoke us at different moments in our careers, align with certain types of projects, and make us aware of the permeable boundaries of (inter)disciplinary communities.

Authors

• Michael B. Sherry, University of South Florida - Tampa

• Vonzell Agosto, University of South Florida

• Jolyn Blank, University of South Florida

• Alisha M. B. Braun, University of South Florida - Tampa

• Leia K. Cain, University of Tennessee

• Allan Feldman, University of South Florida

• Karl Gerhard Jung, University of South Florida

• Jennifer R. Wolgemuth, University of South Florida