This chapter makes the case for developing a shared idiom for methods and methodology within the critical school of political economy. It seeks to cultivate a new language of methods to inform the development of pluralism within the study of political and cultural economy. The chapter suggests that research people begin to develop their own idiomatic framing of methods within the critical school. It reflects how methodological pluralism affects scholars' research ethics and how experts' pragmatic and/or judgement-based claims influence what research people count as evidence. The chapter argues that research people should engage with the social life of methods (SLOM) agenda to re-conceive the pluralist methodology used within the critical school. SLOM offers a means of challenging intellectual jurisdictions rather than a tool for extending pre-existing critical frameworks to accommodate new objects of analysis. Finally, the chapter considers how research people can begin to reimagine their research processes and reconceive the ends to which they put their collected evidence.