I think research methodology is derived from changing social dynamics. We need to structure our research to suit these dynamics. The parameters we are measuring keep changing. My take.

Hi Samuel,

I do think that research itself is inherently a social process and very much influenced by our societal beliefs, expectations, and preferences.  If this is the case, then research itself can't avoid being influenced by social change ...and the reverse is also true because research methods are often used as tools for justification of various social issues.  Your mention of Education and No Child Left Behind is a great example....especially with Reading First legislation and application during the Bush administration.  A set of ideologies were put in place and justified with a more behavioristic orientation to learning.  There was often the suggestion that reading research had to be "scientific and replicable" in order for it to be used to advance educational/literacy policy and to fund educational initiatives and research.  However, this take on "science" and research was very narrow....primarily based upon experimental designs that were not sufficient to deal with the complexity of human learning/cognitive processes like literacy.  The research methodologies adopted very much influenced social, political and educational policy but were primarily the handmaidens of the political ideologies.  Other illustrations included the movement toward behaviorism at the turn of the 20th century because of Progressivism's desire for social engineering (for a while...J.B. Watson was very clear on this point). The original scientific method itself was a product of a social movement toward humanism and enlightenment and away from religious belief and practice.  These are just two illustrations....there are many and even if you don't fully buy in to the "Science wars" of the 1980s when some  social scientists and physical scientists debated these issues, there are practical demonstrations as you have mentioned that set social and educational policy.

Neoliberal discourse in policy, especially in regards to the expense of tax payer money, demands evidence. Now often this evidence is short sided (inherently quantitative) and fails to account for many factors of the social realm. For example, medicating rather than actually treating people for disorders or pathology. It is a politically expedient answer which is "evidence based"- however, it is inherently lacking in other dimensions.

Thus social change often gets pared down by these forces. Discourse is a power relationship which gives authority the right to say what is so. Thus it is important to remember that even research which is comprehensive, and takes into account multiple factors, is likely to be pared down when translated into politics. And of course, money is required to manifest top-down change, and almost nothing in today's world gets financed with public money without "evidence".

Finally, from the grassroots, research play a different role- not constrained by discourse, or inherently self-defined- grassroots research is often more encompassing, additionally, it is also often under-funded. However, it also plays a subordinate role. Social change occurs, and the scientist then tries to figure out why, whether the change is sustainable, and how it may be replicated to treat other social ills.

Science rarely translates completely to policy. Politics is a compromising area. And often, technical problems can be solved through science, but lacking technocratic governmental forces, it is watered down by businessmen and lawyers who are trying to to what they can to save tax payer money, get re-elected, and meet some level of moral standard. This is why many policies ultimately prove inefficient or downright ineffective in actuality- not because of bad science, but by mitigating discursive, political, and economic forces acting on the solution before it is manifested.

Interesting discourse

What is the relationship between research methodology and social change?

It 'a necessary relationship. There can be no research without the connection to the social dimension. It 'a circular process: search, social change, education.

Research methodology and social change are intrinsically connected depending upon what outcomes are expected? As mentioned, the current global neo-liberal ideology impacting upon those within society is a key issue here. The 'new managerialism' or 'new public management' (NPM) approach currently forced upon services that support communities and society is contrary to the essence of empowered social change from within. The 'Frierian' emancipatory approach of enabling communities to self-educate and have the relevant tools to make social change have been almost eradicated. So as to challenge, as 'Gramsci'  would suggest, the hegomany currently holding society at bay is somewhat difficult to attempt as these elements within society are generally scapegoated and consume the arena of creating a counter moral panic to subside the said voices. This is said to be led by a politically motivated 'right wing' mass media?

The discourse is evident as the actual citizens that society is made up of are drawn in to a 'social-control' model to maintain the status-quo through the use of primarily outcome based, defined required outcomes, payment by results approaches along with the NPM mentioned. This then perpetuates in to the attempted exploration and acquisition of the said research within society that is driven through the above agendas directly enforced through financial motives.

The bold and ethical approach would be to draw upon the relevant research methodologies that underpin the understanding of such societies. To draw upon the more qualitative based approaches would offer the relevant empowerment needed to challenge and develop social change from within. The ethnographic and phenomenological approaches should be re-invigorated to capture the current questioning from societies regarding their current stake within it. The global examples are far reaching from the up-risings in the middle east to the localised campaigns on single issue based topics.

If we start from this premise then the process is relevant, ethical and all encompassing. The cycle of inclusion, education, empowerment, challenge then social change can have its merits. 

You all made excellent points on my question above. I found it very interesting reading from the different point of views to see how much research is influenced by social change. 

Thank you all for your input.

respected samuel, 

     in my point of view the social change and research methodology can be linked only when there is a real change based on the research conducted which will have an impact on the society. if not the research methodology has nothing to do with the social change. because the changes occurs in the society irrespective of research carried out or not. changes in Society are influenced by different factors. we can guarantee the change is due to the research methodology alone.

 Assumption that social change occurs as a result of the effect of a change agent. Agents for change can come from individuals, groups, or institutions. If you want research to uncover the "meaning" a social change, then the appropriate research method is a "interpretive" (qualitative research), which aims to reveal the meaning behind the action (individual, group, or institution) that is the subject of research. However, if you want to research on explaining the process of social change and an event of social change "general", then the method appropriate research is a "quantitative research" aimed to reveal a process of change and test theories about social change in the context (individual, group, or institution) that is the subject of research. thanks

Fatchan, and Tamizhkumamn,

Good points. Thank you. I know also that there can be no research without the connection to the social elements. Also, studies show that research methodology and social change are much more connected depending upon what outcomes are expected based on the research.

A very interesting question. 

On one hand, research (which requies methodology) aims to discover something new and contribute to social change. So research methodology affects change.

On the other hand, social changes affect research methodology. For example:

1) In the era of ICT, you would use computer assisted means in reserch methodology.

2) New social trends are always food for research.

3) The methodology you use will be affected by the social context (e.g. laws, you cannot defy laws when doing research in children with disabilities)

So you can say it is a complex bidirectional relationship.

If we really want social change, then we tend to choose critical theoretical perspectives as our framework, which may lead us to choose action research or participatory research (i.e. research with participants; not the research to or for participants) as a methodological design. This link can be of help.

http://www.participatorymethods.org/sites/participatorymethods.org/files/Learning%20to%20do%20action%20research%20pettit892-3393-1-PB.pdf 

Interesting and timely discourse as Social change is dynamic and unfortunately, research methodology is static at present. Even innovations in research design don't provide social scientists much room to flex their muscles. At some point emperical studies are taking over which is not demanded by many social phenomenon.