A Critique of the Primacy of Method in Knowledge Production

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Applied Jurisprudence, Baqir al-Olum University, Qom, Iran

2 Department of Cultural Communications, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Baqir al-Olum University, Qom, Iran.

10.22081/jikm.2026.75144.1122

Abstract

In recent decades, various quantitative and qualitative research methods have been among the major drivers of knowledge production in many academic circles. The emphasis placed on these methods has progressed to such an extent that they have been elevated beyond their instrumental role and transformed into normative criteria for assessing scientific validity, research, and researchers. In other words, the scientific and research value of a study has come to be determined not by its content and the logic underlying its production, but by its use of one of the recognized quantitative or qualitative research methods. The present article adopts an analytical-critical approach to examine this shift from ends to means as one of the fundamental challenges in the field of knowledge production. Drawing on an analytical review of the literature and the history of the philosophy of science, the sociology of science, and science policy, and by distinguishing between “understanding” and “science,” the study demonstrates that the excessive prioritization of method not only restricts scientific creativity and innovation, but also distances science from addressing real societal problems and contributes to phenomena such as the formalization of research, the weakening of indigenous theorization, and academic rent-seeking. The article argues that science governance requires a reconsideration of the logic of knowledge production and a transition from method-centered hegemony toward a problem-centered and understanding-oriented model in which methods serve the research problem rather than the other way around. Finally, the study presents policy implications of this approach for scientific evaluation systems, research journals, and graduate education.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

بابی، ارل. (1400). روش‌های تحقیق در علوم اجتماعی (مترجم: رضا فاضل). تهران: سمت
بلیکی، نورمن. (1393). پارادایم‌های تحقیق در علوم انسانی (مترجم: حمیدرضا حسنی و محمدتقی ایمان و مسعود ماجدی). قم: پژوهشگاه حوزه و دانشگاه.
چالمرز، آلن اف. (1378). چیستی علم (مترجم: سعید زیباکلام). تهران: سمت.
حسینی بهشتی، محمدرضا. (1400). مفهوم علم و روش علمی در اندیشۀ فرانسیس بیکن. پژوهش‌نامۀ انتقادی متون و برنامه‌های علوم انسانی، 21(7)، صص 3-25.
حقی، علی. (1381). گذر از روش‌شناسی علم به روش‌ستیزی علم. نشریۀ دانشکدۀ الهیات مشهد، (۵۶)، صص23-63.
طاهری، مرتضی. (1403). نوآوری در روش‌های پژوهش ترکیبی: روش‌شناسی یا روش پرستی. اندازه‌گیری تربیتی، 14(55)، صص 144-92.
عبداللهی، عبدالله؛ جوان، جعفر. (1389). درآمدی بر فلسفۀ علم و پژوهش در علوم انسانی (ج2). تهران: چاپار.
میرزایی اهرنجانی، حسن. (1386). زمینه‌های روش‌شناختی تئوری سازمان. تهران: سمت.
وایت، پاتریک. (1397). صورت‌بندی سؤالات تحقیق راهنمای پژوهشگران اجتماعی (مترجم: کاظم حاجی‌زاده). تهران: جامعه‌شناسان.
Alatas, F. (2006). Alternative discourses in Asian social science: Responses to Eurocentrism. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Biagioli, M. & Lippman, A. (2020). Gaming the metrics: Misconduct and manipulation in academic research. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press .
Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burawoy, M. (2005). For public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70(1), pp. 4‑28.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Crotty, M. (1998). Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the research process (1st ed.). Routledge.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1993). Against method (3rd ed.). London: Verso.
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S. & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), pp. 429–431. Doi: 10.1038/520429a
Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning (N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 209–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd ed.). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lather, p.(1992). Critical Frames in Educational Reasearch: Feminist and Post- Structural Perspectives. Theory into Practice31(2), pp. 87-99.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Mirowski, P. (2018). Sciencemart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Müller, R. (2019). Metrics, quality, and the reproduction of inequality in academia. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(2), pp. 1–27.
Neuman, W. l. (1997). Social Research Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, London: Allyn and Bacon.
Mattern, S. (2013). Methodolatry and the art of measure. Places Journal. Doi:10.22269/131105.
Sarantakos, S. (1993). Sosial Research. Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.
 

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 October 2024
  • Revise Date: 20 December 2024
  • Accept Date: 07 March 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics