Translated from Greek, the term "method" literally means "way". It is used to describe the views, techniques, methods and operations that are interconnected and connected into a single system, which are purposefully applied in research activities or in the practical implementation of the learning process. The choice of method directly depends on the worldview of the one who will apply it, on the goals and objectives of the activity.

In fact, every field of human activity is characterized by its own methods. Often talk about methods literary creativity, methods of collecting and processing information, doing business. In this case, we are most often talking about the most general principles and approaches that underlie the knowledge of one of the aspects of reality and actions with its objects.

Several independent classifications of methods are known. They can be divided into public and private. Sometimes there are special methods of specific scientific disciplines, for example, the comparative method in linguistics or the method of system descriptions in psychology. But there is also the most common methods, which are widely used in any science, as well as in education. These include direct observation, experiment and simulation.

The difference between a technique and a method

The technique, if compared with the method, is more specific and substantive. In essence, it is a well-prepared and adapted to a specific task algorithm of actions within the framework of a methodological approach. This more or less clearly defined sequence of operations is based on the accepted method, on its basic principles. In terms of its content, the concept of "methodology" is closest to the term "technology".

A distinctive feature of the methodology is the detailing of techniques and their approximation to the task facing the researcher or teacher. If, for example, in a sociological study it is decided to use the method of interviewing, then the methodology for calculating the results and interpreting them may be different. It will depend on the accepted concept of the study, the characteristics of the sample, the level of equipment of the researcher, and so on.

In other words, the method is directly embodied in the methodology. It is believed that a good scientist or teacher, working within a certain method, owns a whole repertoire of methods, which allows him to be flexible in his approaches and adapt to changing conditions of activity.

Methods of similarity and difference. combined method.

Causal relationship. Common Mistakes arising from the analysis of causal relationships.

A causal relationship is a relationship between two phenomena, events, one of which acts as a cause, and the other as a consequence. In the very general view the relationship of causation can be defined as such a genetic connection between phenomena, in which one phenomenon, called the cause, under certain conditions, necessarily generates, brings to life another phenomenon, called the effect.

Signs of a causal relationship:

1. The presence of a relationship between two phenomena production or generation. The cause does not just precede the effect in time, but generates, brings it to life, genetically determines its occurrence and existence.

2. The causal relationship is characterized unidirectionality or temporal asymmetry. This means that the formation of the cause always precedes the occurrence of the effect, but not vice versa.

3. Necessity and unambiguity. If a cause arises under strictly defined fixed external and internal conditions, then it necessarily gives rise to a certain effect, and this takes place regardless of the localization of this causal relationship in space and time.

4. Spatial and temporal continuity, or adjacency. Any causal relationship, upon careful consideration, actually acts as a certain chain of causally connected events.

Scientific induction methods

Modern logic describes five methods of establishing causal relationships: (1) the method of similarity, (2) the method of difference, (3) the combined method of similarity and difference, (4) the method of concomitant changes, (5) the method of residuals.

According to the similarity method, several cases are compared, in each of which the phenomenon under study occurs; while all cases are similar only in one and different in all other circumstances.

The similarity method is called the method of finding common in different for all the cases differ markedly from one another, except in one circumstance.

Consider an example of reasoning by the method of similarity. Medical point of one of the villages in summer period were recorded for a short time three cases of dysinteria (d). When determining the source of the disease, the main attention was paid to the following types of water and food, which more often than others can cause intestinal diseases in the summer:

BUT - drinking water from wells;

M - water from the river;

B - milk;

C - vegetables;

F - fruits.

The scheme of reasoning by the method of similarity has the following form:

· BUT AT C - calls d

M B F - calls d

M AT C - calls d

Apparently AT is the reason d

Reliable conclusion can be obtained by the method of similarity only if the researcher knows exactly all previous circumstances which make up closed set possible causes, and it is also known that each of the circumstances does not interact with others. In this case, inductive reasoning acquires evidentiary value,

This method is a combination of the first two methods, when, by analyzing many cases, one discovers like the similar in the different, and the different in the similar.

As an example, let us dwell on the above reasoning by the similarity method about the causes of the illness of three students. If we supplement this reasoning with an analysis of three new cases in which the same circumstances are repeated, except for a similar one, i.e. the same foods were eaten, except for beer, and no disease was observed, then the conclusion will proceed in the form of a combined method.

The likelihood of a conclusion in such a complicated reasoning increases markedly, because the advantages of the method of similarity and the method of difference are combined, each of which separately gives less reliable results.

4. Method of concomitant changes

The method is used in the analysis of cases in which there is a modification of one of the preceding circumstances, accompanied by a modification of the action under study.

Previous inductive methods have relied on the recurrence or absence of a particular circumstance. However, not all causally related phenomena allow the neutralization or replacement of individual factors that make them up. For example, when examining the influence of demand on supply, it is impossible in principle to exclude demand itself. In the same way, by determining the influence of the Moon on the magnitude of sea tides, it is impossible to change the mass of the Moon.

The only way to detect causal relationships in such conditions is to fix in the process of observation accompanying changes in previous and subsequent events. The cause in this case is such an antecedent circumstance, the intensity or degree of change of which coincides with the change in the action under study.

The application of the method of concomitant changes also implies the fulfillment of a number of conditions:

(1) Need knowledge about all possible causes of the phenomenon under study.

(2) From the given circumstances must be eliminated those that do not satisfy the property of unambiguous causation.

(3) Among the preceding ones, the only circumstance is singled out, the change of which accompanies change action.

Associated changes may be direct and reverse. Direct dependency means: the more intense the manifestation of the preceding factor, the more actively the phenomenon under study also manifests itself, and vice versa - with a decrease in intensity, the activity or degree of manifestation of the action decreases accordingly. For example, with an increase in demand for a product, an increase in supply occurs, with a decrease in demand, supply decreases accordingly. In the same way, with an increase or decrease in solar activity, the level of radiation in terrestrial conditions increases or decreases accordingly.

Inverse relationship is expressed in that the intense manifestation of the preceding circumstance slows down the activity or reduces the degree of change in the phenomenon under study. For example, the greater the supply, the lower the cost of production, or the higher labor productivity, the lower the cost of production.

The logical mechanism of inductive generalization according to the method of concomitant changes takes the form of deductive reasoning in the tollendo ponens modus of a dividing-categorical inference.

The validity of the conclusion in the conclusion according to the method of accompanying changes is determined by the number of cases considered, the accuracy of knowledge about the antecedent circumstances, as well as the adequacy of the changes in the antecedent circumstance and the phenomenon under study.

As the number of compared cases showing concomitant changes increases, the likelihood of a conclusion increases. If the set of alternative circumstances does not exhaust all possible causes and is not closed, then the conclusion in the conclusion is problematic, not reliable.

The validity of the conclusion also largely depends on the degree of correspondence between the changes in the preceding factor and the action itself. Not any are taken into account, but only proportionally increasing or decreasing changes. Those that do not differ in one-to-one regularity often arise under the influence of uncontrolled, random factors and can mislead the researcher.

Reasoning by the method of accompanying changes is used to identify not only causal, but also others, for example functional connections, when a relationship is established between the quantitative characteristics of two phenomena. In this case, it is important to take into account the characteristic for each kind of phenomena change intensity scales, within which quantitative changes do not change the quality of the phenomenon. In any case, quantitative changes have lower and upper limits, which are called intensity limits. In these boundary zones, the qualitative characteristic of the phenomenon changes and, thus, deviations can be detected when applying the method of accompanying changes.

For example, a decrease in the price of a product when demand falls decreases to a certain point, and then the price increases when demand falls further. Another example: medicine is well aware of the medicinal properties of drugs containing poisons in small doses. With increasing dose, the usefulness of the drug increases only up to a certain limit. Beyond the intensity scale, the drug acts in the opposite direction and becomes hazardous to health.

Any process of quantitative change has its own critical points which should be taken into account when applying the method of concomitant changes, which is effective only within the intensity scale. Using the method without taking into account the boundary zones of quantitative changes can lead to logically incorrect results.

Consider the general definitions of the method and methodology.

Method - a set of techniques and operations of practical and theoretical development of reality. The method is the fundamental theoretical basis of science.

Methodology - a description of specific methods and methods of research.

Based on these common definitions it can be concluded that the technique is a formalized description of the implementation of the method.

Methodological foundations of psychology

The concept of the subject in the methodology of psychology

The idea of ​​the object, subject and method of science is its theoretical and methodological foundation. The method of science cannot be “born” before its object, and vice versa, since they are “nurtured” together. Unless the subject of science first "appears into the world", and after it - as its other "I" - its method. So, for example, according to A. Bergson, since the substance of mental life is pure "duration", it cannot be known conceptually, through rational construction, but is comprehended intuitively. “Any law of science, reflecting what is in reality, at the same time indicates how to think about the corresponding sphere of being; being known, it in a certain sense acts both as a principle, as a method of cognition. It is no coincidence, therefore, that when considering the subject of psychology, the problem of its method is actualized. At the same time, as has already happened in history, the definition of the subject of science may depend on the prevailing idea of ​​what method is considered truly scientific. From the point of view of the founders of introspectionism, the psyche is nothing but "subjective experience". The basis for such a conclusion was, as is well known, the idea that the psychic can be explored exclusively through self-observation, reflection, introspection, retrospection, and so on. For orthodox behaviorists, on the contrary, the psyche does not seem to exist, since it cannot be studied using objective methods, by analogy with observable and measurable physical phenomena. N.N. Lange tried to reconcile both extremes. In his opinion, “... in a psychological experiment, the person being investigated must always give (to herself or us) an account of her experiences, and only the relationship between these subjective experiences and their objective causes and consequences is the subject of research. And yet, of particular interest in the context of considering the paradigm "subject-object - object - method" is the position of K. A. Abulkhanova, which connects the idea of ​​the object of psychology with the understanding of the "qualitative originality of the individual level of being" of a person. The subject is defined by it as a specific way of abstraction due to the nature of the object, with the help of which psychology explores this qualitative originality of the individual being of a person. Clarifying his idea of ​​the subject of psychology, K.A. Abulkhanova specifically emphasizes that the subject should be understood as “... not specific psychological mechanisms revealed by psychological research, but only general principles definitions of these mechanisms. In other words, in the system of these definitions, the “object” of psychology answers the question “What qualitative specificity does the reality that psychology should explore?” The subject is determined, in fact, methodologically and answers the question “How should this reality be investigated in principle?”. That is, there is a kind of categorical shift of the traditionally understood subject of psychology to its object, and the method of this science to its subject. However, at the same time, as it seems to us, new possibilities of meaningful dilution / information of categorical oppositional pairs “subject-object”, “subject-method” are revealed. psychological science:

Psychology as a subject of knowledge

Subject of psychology

Method of psychology

Object of psychology

What is the meaning of such a construction? Probably, first of all, in the fact that as a result of correlating ideas about psychology as a subject of cognition with ideas about its object, subject and method, it will be possible to get a more complete picture of the main definitions of this science.

Let's try to dottedly outline vectors that allow us to see these categories in their meaningful subordination and complementarity, "in their unity, but not identity."

1. "Psychology and its object." Psychology (if it is recognized as an independent science) is the subject of knowledge. Its specific object is the psychic reality that exists independently of it. The qualitative feature of psychology is that it, as the subject of cognition, in principle coincides with its object: the subject cognizes himself through contemplation and creation, through "self-revelation of possible self-transformations." At the same time, psychology can lose its subjective status if, for example, it slides into subjectivism, if some other science makes psychology its appendage, or if, for some strange reason, the object (psyche) begins to mimic, regenerate, turn into a different reality.

2. "Subject and subject of psychology". This is the semantic and target vector of psychology. If psychology, by definition, finds its object in a ready-made form, then it constructs and defines its subject for itself independently, depending on the prevailing theoretical and methodological guidelines (ontological and epistemological, axeological and praxeological, etc.), as well as external conditions (for example, , the dominant philosophical doctrine, political regime, level of culture). In this sense, we can say that the subject of psychological science can undergo changes depending on the nature of sociocultural transformations.

3. "Object and subject of psychology". If the object of psychology represents psychic reality in all its fullness and alleged integrity as a separate entity, the subject of this science carries the idea of ​​what constitutes the quintessence of the psychic, determines its qualitative originality. Assuming that the quality of subjectivity most adequately represents the essential potential of the mental and reveals its optical irreducibility to other realities, it is logical to assert that it is the concept of subjectivity that meaningfully constitutes the subject of psychology, affirming it in the status of an independent science.

4. "Object and method of psychology". The method of science must be relevant to the reality that is supposed to be studied with its help. That is, if the object of science is the psyche, then its method must be strictly psychological, not reduced to the methods of physiology, sociology, philosophy and other sciences. That is why A. Pfender considered the “subjective method” as the main method of psychology, which is internally protected from subjectivist labels and which is no less “objective” than the most objective methods used in the natural sciences.

5. "Subject and Method of Psychology". The task of psychology as a subject of cognition is not only to state the need for a method to correspond to its object, but also to constitute, discover, produce and apply it in scientific practice. Therefore, the method, like the object, is a function of the subject and the changing and developing product of his creative efforts. At the same time, it is important to maintain categorical subordination and not allow the method to determine and, moreover, replace the subject of psychology. The development of methodology can stimulate the development of theory, success in the development of the method of science can lead to a new vision of her subject. But only to determine and nothing more.

6. "The subject and method of psychology." This pair in its existence and development ontologically, as it were, depends on the object, and epistemologically determined by the subject of the cognitive process. The subject is not static, it is the movement of the penetration of the subject of knowledge into the essence of mental life. The method is the path along which the subject (psychology) directs this movement within the object (psyche). If, in defining its subject matter, psychology goes back to the quality of subjectivity, then it should also base the construction of its method on the principle of subjectivity, “expressed in terms of the subject, taken in relation to his life activity”

So, looking at what constitutes its foundation and makes it a self-sufficient subject of cognition, psychology today can hardly afford fuzziness, ambiguity in the definition of its object, subject and method. As evidenced by the analysis, this problem has always attracted the attention of psychologists to one degree or another. However, on the one hand, significant differences that have arisen recent times in theoretical views and methodological approaches, and, on the other hand, a general decline in interest in all kinds of “philosophizing” and “theorizing” due to the growth of pragmatic orientations, lead to the fact that ideas about the subject and method of psychology in their totality today constitute something something to which, say, it is difficult to apply the word "gestalt". At the same time, the method of considering these crucial questions for our science is now built mainly on the principle of trial and error or on the principle of “shaking”, which is successfully used in a children's kaleidoscope. It is enough to shake up a mixture of “fragments” from Marxist, existential, phenomenological, deep, apex and other psychology and, as a result, you can get sometimes simple, sometimes quite complex, but, importantly, always unpredictable, which means a new combination. How many shakes - so many new ideas about the subject and method of psychology. If we multiply the number of shakes by the number of shakers, then we get a completely “postmodern” portrait of the subject and method of the science of psychology, with its “simulacra” and “rhizomes”, as well as unambiguous hints, in the spirit of M. Foucault, about the “death of the subject”.

In our study, we adhere to the traditional orientation, giving preference in the definition subject of psychology"essential" approach, which in this work finds its meaningful concretization in the idea of ​​a person as a subject of mental life. This conceptual-categorical construct plays a special role as an essential-subject lens-matrix through which psychology, as a subject, peers and penetrates into its object. In this sense, even the simplest, genetically original mental phenomena can be adequately “de-objectified” if they are considered in the context of the subject-psychological subject paradigm - as fragments or moments of movement towards subjectivity - the highest essential criterion for determining the qualitative originality of the mental. The principle of subjectivity is internal condition” in scientific psychology, through which it “refracts” the psychic reality that opposes it as an objectively and independently existing entity.

The substantive meaning of the category of subjectness lies in the fact that the entire psychic universe can turn into it, as if into a point, and from it the entire psychic universe can unfold. It absorbs, "removes in itself" all the essential definitions of the mental in all its fullness and diversity of manifestations.

“Ascend - descend,” taught the famous Indian philosopher and psychologist Sri Aurobindo Ghose. This formula helps to visualize the relationship that exists between the object and the subject of psychological science. “Descent” into its object, psychology plunges into the bottomless depths of mental life, discovering there for itself all new phenomena, establishing new patterns, simultaneously clarifying and clarifying what was previously discovered. However, all these results of penetration into the depths and expanses of the psychic (which is the subject of specific scientific research) she not only keeps for herself, not only shares them with other sciences or bestows them on public practice, but sends, figuratively speaking, “upstairs”, to "Laboratory for the study of the essence of the mental and the limiting possibilities of its development." Why is this lab called that? Why, when determining the essence of the mental, the question arises about the highest (maximum possible) level of development of the psyche? The highest essence of the mental is revealed to psychology not at once and not in everything. It is possible that this essence will never be fully comprehended and never will be, because the secrets of the psyche tend not only to be hidden, but also to multiply as it develops. However, depending on the understanding of the ultimate essential characteristic of the psychic as a being, all known psychic phenomena receive a certain interpretation. Thus, having told ourselves that the essence of the mental is in its ability to reflect objective reality, we can limit our mental life to the framework of cognitive activity. If we add regulation to the reflection, then the mental will appear before us as a mechanism that allows a person to orient himself and adapt to the natural, social environment to achieve balance with oneself. If, at a new level of psychological knowledge, the essential feature of the psychic is the conscious transformative, constructive, creative mental and spiritual activity of a person, then this feature is the main criterion for assessing existing knowledge and the main guideline in subsequent psychological research.

Where can the last causality be attributed with the greatest right, I. Kant asked, if not to where the highest causality is also located, i.e. to that being, which initially contains in itself a sufficient reason for any possible action. With regard to the topic of our study, the last and highest causality in the space of mental life is subjectivity. And it is precisely this that is the highest essential criterion by which the psychic world differs from any other world.

Recently, a tendency has been developed in psychology to disidentify the concepts of activity and its subject, the desire to present them as a unity, but not an identity. This means the requirement to see the actor behind the manifestations of any activity, the creator behind the acts of creativity. And, if indeed "at first there was a deed", then psychology cannot but be interested in who did this deed, if an act or a feat, then who performed them, and if a word, then who said it, when, to whom and why. Not the psyche in general, but something in it that eventually reaches the level of a self-conscious subject, is the carrier, centralizer and driving force of mental life. He decides what, how, with whom, why and when to do. He appreciates

results of his activity and integrates them into his own experience. He selectively and proactively interacts with the world. The ontological imperative "to be a subject" is a universal expression of the sovereignty of a real person, responsible for the results of his actions, initially "guilty" of everything that depends on him and not having an "alibi in being" (M.M. Bakhtin).

Therefore, if we talk about the originality of psychic reality, comparing it with other forms of existence of things, then it is the subjective definition of a person’s mental life that crowns the pyramid of its essential characteristics, and therefore has every right to represent the subject core of psychological science in a meaningful way. At the same time, other previously or otherwise formulated definitions of the subject of psychology are not discarded, but are rethought and stored in its subjective version in a “removed” form. "Ascent" to the subjective level of defining the subject of psychology, on the one hand, allows, and on the other hand, requires rethinking everything hitherto discovered by psychology in its object - the psyche. The emergence of new layers of being in the process of development leads to the fact that the previous ones also act in a new capacity (S.L. Rubinshtein). This means that the entire psyche in its formation, functioning and development, starting with the simplest mental reactions and ending with the most complex movements of the soul and spirit, is in fact a special kind of subjectivity unfolding and asserting itself, embodied in the form of free I-creativity.

The subjective specificity of the method of psychological science lies in the fact that it not only contemplates, not only explores the existing psychic reality by all means and methods available to it, but, ultimately, at the highest levels, seeks to comprehend this reality by creating its new

forms and thus goes back to the study of their own possibilities of scientific and psychological creativity (V.V. Rubtsov).

At this peak level, there is, as it were, a natural articulation of initially conditionally disparate ideas about psychology as a subject of cognition, about its object, subject and method. This is the self-cognizing and creative psyche - the highest subjective synthesis of psychological science and the practice of mental life.

Through this kind of analysis and synthesis, the development of ideas about the object, subject and method of psychology as a subject of cognition takes place. The beginning that creates internal energy, sets the dynamics and determines the vector of this self-movement, is the scientific idea of ​​the subjective nature of the mental.

A truly humanistic and certainly optimistic view of human nature, faith in the positive perspective of his personal and historical growth, in our opinion, opens up the possibility and makes necessary a subjective interpretation of the subject and method of psychology as an independent science. It should be thought that it is with this approach that psychology will be able to discover its inherent significance both for other sciences and for itself.

Methodological principles of psychology

Psychology is a science where psychological methods are distributed as all the requirements for scientific method. The result of scientific activity can be a description of reality, an explanation of the prediction of processes and phenomena, which are expressed in the form of a text, a block diagram, a graphical dependence, a formula, etc. The ideal of scientific research is the discovery of laws - a theoretical explanation of reality.

However, scientific knowledge is not limited to theories. All types of scientific results can be conditionally ordered on the scale of "empirical - theoretical knowledge» single fact, empirical generalization, model, regularity, law, theory. Science as a human activity is characterized by method. A person who claims to be a member of the scientific community must share the values ​​in this area, where human activity accepts the scientific method as an acceptable unity, the “norm”.

The system of techniques and operations must be recognized by the scientific community as a mandatory norm governing the conduct of research. Many scientists tend to classify not "sciences" (because few people know what they are), but problems that need to be solved.

The purpose of science is a way of comprehending the truth, which is scientific research.

There are studies: By type: - empirical - research to test theoretical

Theoretical - thought process, in the form of formulas. By nature: - applied

Interdisciplinary

Monodisciplinary

Analytical

Complex, etc.

Plan to check scientific research- hypotheses. It includes groups of people with whom the experiment will be conducted. Suggestions for solving the problem by the method of experimental research.

The well-known methodologist M. Bunge distinguishes between the sciences, where the result of the study does not depend on the method, and those sciences, where the result and the operation with the object form an invariant: the fact is a function of the properties of the object and the operation with it. To last type sciences belongs to psychology, where a description of the method by which the data is obtained

Modeling is used when it is impossible to carry out experimental studies object.

Instead of studying the characteristics of elementary forms of learning and cognitive activity in humans, psychology successfully uses "biological models" of rats, monkeys, rabbits, and pigs for this. Distinguish "physical" - the study of the experiment

"sign-symbolic" - computer programs Empirical methods include - observation

Experiment

Measurement

Modeling

Non-experimental methods

Observation is a purposeful, organized perception and registration of the behavior of an object.

Self-observation observation is the oldest psychological method:

a) non-systematic - application of field research (ethnopsychology, psychological development and social psychology.

b) systematic - according to a certain plan “continuous selective observation.

Behavior observation subject:

verbal

non-verbal

The concept of "methodology" has two main meanings:

a system of certain methods and techniques used in a particular field of activity (in science, politics, art, etc.); doctrine of this system, general theory In action.

History and the current state of knowledge and practice convincingly show that not every method, not every system of principles and other means of activity provides a successful solution of theoretical and practical problems. Not only the result of the research, but also the path leading to it must be true.

The main function of the method is the internal organization and regulation of the process of cognition or practical transformation of that or another object. Therefore, the method (in one form or another) is reduced to a set of certain rules, techniques, methods, norms of cognition and action.

It is a system of prescriptions, principles, requirements that should guide in solving a specific problem, achieving a certain result in a particular area of ​​activity.

It disciplines the search for truth, allows (if correct) to save time and effort, to move towards the goal in the shortest way. The true method serves as a kind of compass, according to which the subject of knowledge and action paves its way, allows you to avoid mistakes.

F, Bacon compared the method with a lamp that illuminates the way for a traveler in the dark, and believed that one cannot count on success in studying any issue by going the wrong way. The philosopher sought to create such a method that could be an "organon" (tool) of knowledge, to provide man with domination over nature.

He considered induction as such a method, which requires science to proceed from empirical analysis, observation and experiment in order to learn the causes and laws on this basis.

R. Descartes called the method "exact and simple rules", the observance of which contributes to the growth of knowledge, allows you to distinguish the false from the true. He said that it is better not to think about finding any kind of truth than to do it without any method, especially without deductive - rationalistic.

Each method is certainly important and necessary thing. However, it is unacceptable to go to extremes:

a) underestimate the method and methodological problems, considering all this to be an insignificant matter, "distracting" from the real work, genuine science, etc. ("methodological negativism");

b) exaggerate the value of the method, considering it more important. than the object to which they want to apply it,

turn the method into a kind of "universal master key" to everything and everything, into a simple and accessible "tool"

scientific discovery ("methodological euphoria"). The fact is that "... not a single methodological principle

can eliminate, for example, the risk of reaching a dead end in the course of scientific research.

Each method will prove to be ineffective and even useless if it is used not as a "guiding thread" in scientific or other form of activity, but as a template for reshaping the facts.

The main purpose of any method is, on the basis of appropriate principles (requirements, prescriptions, etc.), to ensure the successful solution of practical problems, the increment of knowledge, the optimal functioning and development of certain objects.

It should be borne in mind that the issues of method and methodology cannot be limited only by philosophical or intra-scientific frameworks, but must be posed in a broad socio-cultural context.

This means that it is necessary to take into account the connection between science and production at a given stage of social development, the interaction of science with other forms of public consciousness, the ratio of methodological and value aspects, "personal features" of the subject of activity and many other social factors.

The application of methods can be spontaneous and conscious. It is clear that only the conscious application of methods, based on an understanding of their capabilities and limits, makes people's activities, other things being equal, more rational and efficient.

Each of us has heard such concepts as a method or technique many times. But not many people may know that they are closely related, and sometimes they may think that these words are synonyms. You should know that the method is complemented by a methodology for approaching the problem. It should be borne in mind that when choosing one or another method for solving a problem, it is necessary to follow a certain methodology for resolving a particular situation.

The concept of method and methodology

The method is way of moving a goal or solving a specific problem. It can be described by all the views, techniques, methods and operations that are closely related and create a kind of network. They are purposefully used in activities or in the learning process. The main reasons for choosing a method are the worldview of a person, as well as his goals and objectives.
Methods, in turn, can have their own groups. They are:

1. Organizational.
2. Empirical.
3. Data processing.
4. Interpretive.

Organizational methods is a group that includes complex, comparative and longitudinal methods. Thanks to comparative methods, it is possible to study objects according to their characteristics and indicators. Longitudinal methods allow you to examine the same situation or the same object over a certain amount of time. The complex method includes the consideration of the object and its study.

Empirical methods, first of all, observation and experiments. They also include conversations, tests and the like, a method of analysis, evaluation and products of activity.

The method of data processing includes statistical and qualitative analysis situation or object. The interpretation method includes a group of genetic and structural methods.

Each of the above methods is selected from the applied methodology. Each human activity can contain one or another decision method. Each of us decides how to act in a particular situation, based on external factors and signs. We evaluate what is happening and try to choose the right next steps with the maximum benefit and minimum negative. Nobody wants to lose and therefore does everything to prevent this from happening.

The methodology, in turn, is determined the totality of all techniques and methods in teaching or carrying out some work, process, as well as doing something. This is a science that can help implement any methods. It contains various ways and organizations in which the objects and subjects under study interact using specific material or procedures. The technique allows us to choose the most suitable method for the situation, which will allow us to move on, as well as develop. It also allows you to navigate in a particular situation, which makes it possible to move in right direction and choose correct method to solve the problem.

The difference between a method and a technique

The methodology includes more specifics and subject characteristics than a method. In other words, this science can provide a well-thought-out, adapted and prepared algorithm of actions that will solve a certain problem. But at the same time, such a clear sequence of actions is determined by the chosen method, which is characterized by its own principles.

The main distinguishing feature of the technique from the method is more detailed techniques and their applicability to the problem. The solution methods are more detailed, which allows the researcher to choose the right method and turn his plan into reality. In other words, the method is embodied due to the method. If a person chooses the appropriate method for solving a particular problem, based on a set of specific methods, then he will have several methods for solving, and he will also become more flexible in his approach to this situation.

Such a person will be hard to drive into a dead end, as he will be ready for anything. So, the method is nothing more than choosing the direction on the right path to successful solution problems, a way out of an unpleasant situation or success in general. In addition, you still need to skillfully apply it. This will allow you to squeeze the maximum out of any situation, while allowing a minimum of errors. Therefore, it is necessary to choose the right solution technique, based on the chosen method, which will allow you to find the right path and open your eyes to what is happening.