To what extent is the knowledge we produce determined by the methodologies we use? discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

Percy Williams Bridgman, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, once stated that "There are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists". This quote highlights the subjective nature of the research process and the potential impact of personal beliefs and biases on the methodologies used to acquire knowledge, which will be discussed in this essay.

In order to unpack the title prompt, the first step is to define what the word methodology means. According to different sources, it means ”a set of methods, rules, or ideas for regulating a discipline, as in the sciences or arts” (dictionary.com), “a particular procedure or set of procedures in a research” (encyclopedia.com) or “a set of procedures or approaches used to acquire knowledge or test a hypothesis.” (Steup & Neta, 2020). For the purpose of this essay, I will define methodology simply as a set of steps for obtaining certain knowledge.

The knowledge we produce or obtain is essentially dependent on the prior knowledge we possess. This means that the process of designing methodologies to gain a certain knowledge completely relies on what is already believed to be the “universal truth”. As those concepts are distinctly different between disciplines, I am going to explore this topic through the lens of areas of knowledge of history and science.

In the field of history, there is often a lack of consensus among historians on what constitutes universal knowledge. As a result, personal and political views can play a significant role in shaping the methodologies used to acquire knowledge. The first example that relates to this are findings of Erich von Däniken (commonly regarded as a conspiracy theorist). The Swiss author has been researching famous sites from history and claimed some of their elements were proof of alliance species' visit to Earth. His work culminated with the development of the ancient astronaut hypothesis. According to it, many ancient artefacts, ranging from Egyptian hierogliefes to Japanian figurines represent space vehicles and other examples of futuristic technologies(wikipedia.org). One example is von Däniken's interpretation of Iron pillar of Delhi. Von Däniken questions its absence of rust despite its 1,500 years of continuous exposure to the elements (Daniken, 1968). While Western science journals, such as Current Science, have approached it by investigating the molecular structure of the pillar’s surface, Von Daniken relied on his observations, without any research on the material.

We now believe that von Daniken approached the artefacts with aim of confronting traditional historical explanations. So his starting point was “Traditional history doesn’t explain what was happening on Earth in ancient times.” therefore, he used methodologies which support his, predetermined thesis, such as comparative mythology and archaeoastronomy. Of course, the outcomes of his research weren’t correlating with other historical findings, particularly because their starting point was distinctly different. His methods never investigated cultural context of artefacts - they were just identifying possible visual connections with aliens. His theories have been widely discredited by mainstream historians, but his work shows how personal beliefs can influence the development of research methodologies, and therefore those methodologies end up producing knowledge that doesn’t correspond to the one produced by researchers with different starting points.

An example of distinctively different historians independently reaching the same results could be the research on the causes of the French Revolution. Historian Jules Michelet who lived in the 19th century (Cocks, 1967), and Simon Schama who lived in the 20th century (Schama, 1989) have both independently reached the same conclusion through their research that the main causes of the French Revolution were the financial crisis and the discontent of the Third Estate. Michelet used a more romanticized approach and relied heavily on primary sources(letters, diaries, and memoirs), while Schama used a more critical approach and relied on secondary sources (scholarly articles, books, government documents, statistics...). While it may seem that they had similar ways of studying those sources, the fact that they consciously choose to focus on primary or secondary sources makes their methodologies distinctly different. As this example illustrates, rigorous research methodologies, regardless of the historian's personal beliefs, can produce knowledge that is consistent and widely accepted by scholars. However, it is very important to note that both of those historians were following the path of so-called “orthodox history”, which primarily uses western perspectives. Thus, this argument can be challenged by mentioning that, if one of them believed in an alternative historical approach in the first place, they wouldn’t come to the same knowledge. However, this can be reversibly challenged by saying that even “orthodox history” changed between those centuries and thus could be argued that they had somewhat different starting points.

Here we face the debate surrounding the concept of objectivity in historical research. This refers to the idea that historical facts can be perceived without the influence of personal biases or emotions, which can be argued through the second example I provided. However, this concept has been heavily criticized by postmodernists who argue that it is impossible to separate personal biases from historical research (Ankersmit, 2005). They argue that the selection of sources and interpretation of events is always influenced by the researcher's own perspective, which goes in line with the example of Erich von Däniken.
 

We can conclude that dominant beliefs within the field of history can shape the way in which research is conducted and knowledge is produced(the concept of paradigms by Thomas Kuhn). Even if historians live in different era’s, and therefore use different methods in doing their research, they can produce the same knowledge, but only in the case where they all follow the same historical narrative/paradigm.

In the field of science, there is often a consensus on what constitutes universal knowledge. This results in a relatively linear development of knowledge, as most research is based on the same set of assumptions. The scientific method, which emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence and the falsifiability of hypotheses, serves as the foundation for acquiring knowledge in the field of science. However, the production of scientific knowledge is not immune to the influence of personal biases and external factors. The funding sources, personal beliefs and societal pressures of the researcher can shape the research design, methodology and ultimately the knowledge produced. This emphasizes the necessity of critical examination and replication of scientific findings to ensure the validity and reliability of the knowledge produced.

One example of how personal beliefs can shape the way in which research is conducted in science is the case of Lysenkoism in Soviet Russia (Bowler, 2015). Trofim Lysenko, a Soviet biologist, proposed a theory of inheritance that rejected the concepts of genetics and Mendelian inheritance. Lysenko's theory was heavily influenced by his personal belief in the principles of Lamarckism, which posits that acquired characteristics can be passed down to offspring. The theory was widely accepted in Soviet Russia, but it was later discredited by the scientific community. He has conducted non-controlled experiments, which’s results could be interpreted in many different ways due to a lack of precise data and controlled conditions. While the outcome of those experiments, designed through his personal beliefs, was his theory, a scientific community which has used conventional western medicine to investigate DNA has seen the opposite result. The Lysenko case illustrates how the dominant political and ideological beliefs of society influence scientific research and knowledge production. However, more importantly for this essay, it emphasizes the fact that different pre-research assumptions (and therefore methodologies) lead to different knowledge.

On the other hand, research on the structure of viruses could be used to build a counterargument on this. In the early 20th century, scientists such as Wendell Stanley believed that viruses were not living organisms but rather crystalline proteins (Crawford, 1997). This assumption was based on the idea that living organisms were made up of cells, and since viruses were smaller than cells, they were not considered to be living organisms. However, this assumption was later disproved by the discovery of the genetic material in viruses and the ability of viruses to replicate themselves. Despite this false assumption, Stanley's research led to the development of techniques for the purification and crystallisation of viruses, which were important in the understanding of the structure of viruses and in the development of vaccines and antiviral drugs. This example demonstrates that even if a scientist's starting point is based on false assumptions, their research can still lead to a correct understanding of a scientific phenomenon if the researcher is open to revising their hypotheses and incorporating new evidence. Considering this, if Lysenko was open to revising his beliefs while he did the research, he would probably have got the same result as the rest of the science community of that time did.

In conclusion, the knowledge we produce is not heavily influenced by the methodologies we use but with what lies behind the development of methodologies. This essay explored how methodologies link personal beliefs, dominant beliefs within a field, and assumptions with the knowledge that is produced. The example of the Ancient Astronauts hypothesis illustrates how personal beliefs can lead to the development of methodologies that produce knowledge that doesn't align with mainstream understanding. On the other hand, the example of the research on the causes of the French Revolution and viruses demonstrates how rigorous research methodologies can lead to the production of consistent and widely accepted knowledge among scholars in the field, and even more in case scientists are open to negotiating their beliefs and assumptions in the research process. Therefore, it can be concluded that methodologies themself can or cannot lead to the same knowledge, depending on the components behind their design, as those have a lot more significant impact on the knowledge we produce.

1. Bowler, P.J. (2015) The mendelian revolution: The emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in modern science and Society. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

2. Crawford , D. (1997) The Virus Hunters. New York: Scribner.
 

3. Daniken, E.von (1968) Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past.

4. Schama, S. (1989) Citizens: A chronicle of the French Revolution. Random house of Canada.

5. Michelet, J. and Cocks, C. (1967) History of the French Revolution: Jules Michelet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 

6. Ankersmit, F. (2005) “7. subjective historical experience: The past as Elegy,” Sublime Historical Experience, pp. 263–316. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503624597-011.

7. Steup, M. and Neta, R. (2020) Epistemology, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ (Accessed: January 25, 2023).
 

8. "International encyclopedia of the social sciences." encyclopedia.com. 17 Jan. 2023. Available at: https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/computers-and-electrical-enginee ring/computers-and-computing/methodology (Accessed: January 25, 2023).

9. Methodology definition & meaning (no date) Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Available at: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/methodology (Accessed: January 25, 2023).

10. Erich von Däniken (2023) Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken (Accessed: February 3, 2023).