INTRODUCTION

Discussions of research methodology follow theoretical presentations with nearly the same inevitability as night follows day. One can assume with a good deal of accuracy that a sociologist will immediately turn to a methodological discussion once his or her theoretical claims have been staked. The format is standard in any “scientific” presentation. The idea is that one begins with a theory and “tests” it against the “real” world. Methodological discussions supposedly link theories to findings; they tell readers how sociologists arrived at their conclusions.

Stripped of pretense, talk about research methods is a claim to credibility. Essentially it is an attempt to persuade an audience that what a researcher says is “true.” Believability is established by suggesting that if the audience does what the researcher did they will reach the same conclusions. Understandably, then, a discussion of research methods is an important one. If a researcher's methods are suspect so are the findings.

The traditional method for establishing believability in the social and behavioral sciences takes a sequential, narrative form. In the words of Schatzman and Strauss, it is a “linear series of thoughts, operations, and outcomes – beginning with a statement of the problem, followed by a description of procedural design as intention, then by a description of actual operations, and ending with an itemization and discussion of findings” (1973: 142). Descriptions of the research process are also linear or sequential.