• DOI:10.2307/3586897
• Corpus ID: 16626913

There Is No Best Method-Why ?

@article{Prabhu1990ThereIN,
  title={There Is No Best Method-Why ?},
  author={N. S. Prabhu},
  journal={TESOL Quarterly},
  year={1990},
  volume={24},
  pages={161-176}
}

• N. S. Prabhu
• Published 1 June 1990
• Philosophy
• TESOL Quarterly

This paper examines the possible substance of a statement, often heard but rarely explained, in the discussion of language teaching, namely, that there is no best method. Three possible explanations of the statement are discussed, based on a broad interpretation of the term method: (a) that different methods are best for different teaching contexts; (b) that all methods are partially true or valid; and (c) that the notion of good and bad methods is itself misguided. The first two explanations are shown to be unhelpful; the third is discussed in some detail, with an exploration of the concept, teachers' sense of plausibility. It is uncommon these days to have a sustained discussion on language teaching without someone at some point declaring that there is no best method, or words to that effect. Such a declaration usually occurs at a late stage in an indecisive debate about different methods, and has the general effect of altering the orientation of the debate itself, somewhat abruptly. It also carries the ring of an incontrovertible statement-or a statement so tolerant and reconciliatory in spirit that to dispute it would be professionally churlish. As a result, one rarely sees a detailed examination of what it might mean to say that there is no best method. I think it helpful to see the statement as having an illocutionary as well as a propositional meaning. As an illocutionary act, it seeks to terminate a debate without reaching any substantive conclusion, and it does so not by admitting defeat in the effort to reach a conclusion, but by appearing to raise the debate itself to a higher level, thus helping to save professional face all round. It suggests not just that proponents of different methods agree to disagree, but that they give up their pursuit of agreement and disagreement as being unproductive. It manages to reconcile conflicting views by defining a position to which all can honourably subscribe, and by striking a philosophical note on which enlightened discussion can properly end. It is thus a convenient device for legitimizing nonresolution of methodological issues.