Methodology of research in general

Once the hypothesis to be tested has been formulated, or if in exceptional cases we prefer to proceed without one, we have to decide on the methods to be used for a particular research project. A difference of opinion has arisen between the supporters of ‘problem orientation’ and those of ‘methods orientation’. ¹ Is it preferable in research to have a worthwhile subject for investigation, even if it can be studied only by second-rate methods, or to be able to apply first-rate methods to a subject of doubtful significance to the progress of criminology ? Which of the two ways of thinking should dominate and which should have to adapt itself to the other? It is tempting enough for the enthusiastic methodologist to vote in favour of the second alternative, and it is here that our remarks on the subjective element in the selection of a suitable subject for research are also applicable (see above, Chapter 3, II(b)). Criminology has been suffering from such an abundance of research on important matters carried out with complete neglect of the most elementary methodological principles ² that we might well be forgiven for preaching the gospel of the primacy of method. There is much to be said for the view that there should be no research on subjects which cannot be properly tackled with the methods or material at present available. ‘Without an awl the cobbler's nobody.’ On the other hand, to place all the emphasis on the perfection of methods at the expense of the quality of the subject to be investigated would lead to a mere l'art pour l'art mentality and to the building up of a secluded, highly abstract and sophisticated, methodology which would soon lose touch with reality and squander its resources on problems which interest nobody but its own high-priests and their acolytes. What we need is both worthwhile subjects and up-to-date methods of investigation, but if we find that with the material and the techniques at present at our disposal we cannot expect to obtain scientifically reliable results we should be self-denying and honest enough to postpone research on the problem in question, however interesting and pressing it may appear. Sometimes this will mean that in the interval we can profitably make arrangements for the training of staff and the collection of better material for future research. ³