I have just been told I am to give a seminar on the methods of my study. Has ANYONE got a succinct definition of these two things. Every time I think I have got them sorted I read something else which turns it on its head. One book I have just read says these two things are often confused - and then goes to write one of the most confusing explanations I have ever come across. (I've got away with it so far as I've just been taking notes and things, but this looks like its crunch time)

Hiya, Joyce. Hope this isn't an over-simplification but I see it thus:

1)Methodology - the general approach to taken to carrying out a piece of research, which informs the choice of methods.

2)Methods - particular techniques used to collect and analyse data.

BTW, you're right about there being so many definitions. My supervisor insists that methodology means the discipline dedicated to the study of methods! And he's correct when you look at some definitions, but incorrect when you consider others.
Anyway, the definitions above are written by a university professor on a .ac.uk website, so I stick with them.

my take on this is that methodology is kind of "the theory behind your methods" and methods are the concrete, practical steps you take. your methodology would normally inform your methods. so if your "theory" is that it is impossible to capture "truth" but rather you are interested in "representations", and these representations are lodged in people's minds rather than in natural phenomena, you would use methods directed towards finding out HOW people think, rather than WHAT they say. rather than asking them questions with the intent of them "telling you the truth, telling you what you need to know".
so you would ask different interview questions and use different sampling and use different analysis methods. that's the methods part then - informed by your methodology.

It is a confusing one. I defined my understanding of methodology and methods to my supervisors in a similar way as Walminskipeasucker has outlined and they seemed ok with this! I think of methodologies as for example grounded theory, discourse analysis etc. in the qualitative tradition using methods such as focus groups and interviews and experimental designs as as a methodology in the quant using standardised questionnaires as a methods. I think though a survey would be a method in the quant? I am not sure but complex statistical analysis techniques may be added in as a methodology in the quant.

agree, you can talk about both methodology and your specific methods; I find the methodology is the theoretical foundation of your methods; so if the methodology is wrong, the methods cannot be right.

martin bauer, in "qualitative researching with text, image and sound" (2000) says that any "research design" encompasses four dimensions: a) the design principle, such as case study, sample survey, experiment, etc. b) a method of data elicitation such as interviewing, questionnaire, collection of documents. c) data analysis, e.g. statistical modelling, content analysis, coding, indexing, discourse analysis, ... and d) knowledge interests, he gives three: control and prediction; consensus building; emancipation and empowerment.

i would categorize a-c as methods (obviously informed by your methodology). d however is part of the methodology, where methodology encompasses not only your beliefs about how we can know anything, but also your thoughts about what kind of knowledge do you want to achieve.
bauer in this article however uses methodology simply as the sum of methods. that makes a certain sense, too, as any one of his "dimensions" could be called an individual method, but won't achieve anything: you'd have a lot of data but no analysis, for example; so only by adding a method of analysis to a method of data elicitation can you reach a full methodology.