Frankenstein Method

A research methodology that deliberately combines incompatible techniques from different disciplines, paradigms, or traditions to address complex problems. It rejects methodological purism (e.g., only RCTs, only ethnography). Instead, it uses whatever works: surveys alongside oral histories, lab experiments alongside computational models, quantitative analysis alongside narrative inquiry. The Frankenstein Method is common in fields like public health, climate science, and human‑computer interaction. It is criticized for eclecticism, but defended as necessary for problems too messy for any single method.

Example: “Her Frankenstein Method for studying misinformation combined network analysis, qualitative interviews, and controlled experiments—none of them perfect alone, but together they revealed patterns that any single method would have missed.”

Frankenstein Method by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal June 1, 2026

Frankenstein Methodology

The meta‑level study and justification of the Frankenstein Method. It argues that methodological pluralism and bricolage (tinkering) are not signs of weakness but strengths when facing complex, real‑world problems. It draws on post‑positivist philosophy of science (Feyerabend’s “anything goes” in a disciplined sense), critical realism, and pragmatism. Frankenstein Methodology provides criteria for successful stitching: complementarity, triangulation, and transparency about how different methods are combined. It is a practical guide for researchers who refuse to be constrained by monomethodological dogma.

Example: “Frankenstein methodology guided the disaster research team: they used satellite data (quantitative), survivor testimonies (qualitative), and infrastructure maps (spatial) not as a hierarchy but as a patchwork—each method filled gaps left by others.”

Frankenstein Methodology by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal June 1, 2026