16 books
—
1 voter
Methodology Books
Showing 1-50 of 2,472

by (shelved 21 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.29 — 79,350 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 21 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.47 — 1,972 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 13 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.16 — 120,457 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 11 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.98 — 27,430 ratings — published 1940

by (shelved 11 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.02 — 1,310 ratings — published 1997

by (shelved 11 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.50 — 414 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 9 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.84 — 937 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 8 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.92 — 4,326 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 8 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.10 — 500 ratings — published 2006

by (shelved 8 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.81 — 2,788 ratings — published 1994

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.45 — 105 ratings — published

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.00 — 166,552 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.93 — 4,532 ratings — published 1977

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.07 — 4,955 ratings — published 2007

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.02 — 3,477 ratings — published 1975

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.90 — 235 ratings — published 1967

by (shelved 6 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.07 — 398 ratings — published 1998

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.40 — 151 ratings — published

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.08 — 13,394 ratings — published 2017

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.19 — 23,227 ratings — published 2016

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.06 — 917 ratings — published

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.98 — 1,841 ratings — published 1981

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.72 — 24,850 ratings — published 1637

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.79 — 173 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.96 — 745 ratings — published 1984

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.86 — 269 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.58 — 624 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.48 — 655 ratings — published 2009

by (shelved 5 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.82 — 306 ratings — published 1988

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.16 — 810,465 ratings — published 1989

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.21 — 747 ratings — published 2009

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.19 — 21,442 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.01 — 121 ratings — published 2004

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.98 — 36,819 ratings — published 2017

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.94 — 6,488 ratings — published 2018

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.84 — 93,721 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.11 — 87,320 ratings — published 1990

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.09 — 2,934 ratings — published 1949

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.09 — 270 ratings — published 1989

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.98 — 1,138 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.14 — 408 ratings — published 2000

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.18 — 86,640 ratings — published 1918

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.91 — 287 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.03 — 29,524 ratings — published 1962

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.54 — 124 ratings — published 1983

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.92 — 337 ratings — published 1991

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.07 — 175 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 3.69 — 48 ratings — published 1987

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.00 — 358 ratings — published 1980

by (shelved 4 times as methodology)
avg rating 4.11 — 351 ratings — published 1984
“…never settle for trying to be less than the best.”
― Coach, Run, Win
― Coach, Run, Win

“The proper METHOD for studying poetry and good letters is the method of contemporary biologists, that is careful first-hand examination of the matter, and continual COMPARISON of one ‘slide’ or specimen with another.
No man is equipped for modern thinking until he has understood the anecdote of Agassiz and the fish:
A post-graduate student equipped with honours and diplomas went to Agassiz to receive the final and finishing touches.
The great man offered him a small fish and told him to describe it.
Post-Graduate Student: “That’s only a sun-fish”
Agassiz: “I know that. Write a description of it.”
After a few minutes the student returned with the description of the Ichthus Heliodiplodokus, or whatever term is used to conceal the common sunfish from vulgar knowledge, family of Heliichterinkus, etc., as found in textbooks of the subject.
Agassiz again told the student to describe the fish.
The student produced a four-page essay.
Agassiz then told him to look at the fish. At the end of the three weeks the fish was in an advanced state of decomposition, but the student knew something about it.
— ABC of Reading (1934; New Directions)”
―
No man is equipped for modern thinking until he has understood the anecdote of Agassiz and the fish:
A post-graduate student equipped with honours and diplomas went to Agassiz to receive the final and finishing touches.
The great man offered him a small fish and told him to describe it.
Post-Graduate Student: “That’s only a sun-fish”
Agassiz: “I know that. Write a description of it.”
After a few minutes the student returned with the description of the Ichthus Heliodiplodokus, or whatever term is used to conceal the common sunfish from vulgar knowledge, family of Heliichterinkus, etc., as found in textbooks of the subject.
Agassiz again told the student to describe the fish.
The student produced a four-page essay.
Agassiz then told him to look at the fish. At the end of the three weeks the fish was in an advanced state of decomposition, but the student knew something about it.
— ABC of Reading (1934; New Directions)”
―