What are ontology and epistemology and why are they important in social science research
Introduction
The study of any particular science involves embracing particular and specific ontology, epistemology and methodologies that are different from each other. Ontology is the concept that defines and explains the essential types of truth (Blaikie 2009). Every field of science constitutes its own ontology and in most cases two types of ontology exists: formal ontology and domain ontology (Blaikie 2009). Formal ontology type of research always postulates something general related to reality while on the other hand domain ontology postulate something specific with regard to different types of truths (Blaikie 2009). On its part epistemology constitute a science concept that defines how human and the general population of the world know and reason the particular truth. The two concepts are differentiated by particular assumptions that are associated with each of them. For instance assumptions associated with ontology include: shallow realist, conceptual realist, cautious realist, depth realist and idealist (Blaikie 2009). On the other hand assumptions related to epistemology include: empiricism, rationalism, falsificationism, neo-realism and constructionism (Blaikie 2009). Therefore the purpose of this essay will be to define objectivism and inteprativism as related to ontology, define positivism and interpretavism as related to epistemology, explain how ontology and epistemology are linked and how they influence each other, before lastly looking at how important ontology and epistemology are.
Objectivism and interprativism in ontology
Blaike (2000) asserted that ontology to involve, “claims and assumptions that are made about natur...
... middle of paper ...
...oherent research practice functions to collect and communicate information about the world, a scenario enabled by key concepts of ontology and epistemology.
Conclusion
Social reality in general is viewed as a complex of causal relations between events that are depicted as patchwork of relationships between variables. Generally, causes of human behavior are regarded as being external to the individual and knowledge is seen to be derived from sensory experience by means of experimental or comparative analysis and concepts and generalizations are summaries of particular observations. In reality, claims have been made about what is observed with the senses is what is real and that scientific laws are similar with empirical regularities. In summary, key concepts of ontology and epistemology have played important role in shaping and guiding social research processes.
...esent-day philosophers, we are part of a long historical path that started with Greek primal establishment, and is set to continue with future generations until the final establishment is realized. The concept of reductionism also tries to bring different things, different parts, together to form one whole, unified form. We can trace the origins of modern scientific trends back to Greek primal establishment. From the simplistic Socratic approach of ‘Who am I?’, philosophical self-reflection builds on thoughts and concepts of the likes of Galileo and Socrates until it reaches present thinking.
Based on the preceding ontological and epistemological assumptions a researcher then makes methodological assumptions. Having decided on exactly what is to be studied the researcher then decides how the research can best be managed thus formulating a plan of action. Considerations include whether the research used should be primary or secondary. Whether one will test an existing hypothesis or whether one will construct a theory after having collated evidence. Finally one can draw conclusions as to which strategy to implement with the ultimate goal of producing the type of knowledge that is required. This then results in the type of method or methods of research to be used.
For nearly a thousand years, the ontological argument has captured the attention of philosophers. The ontological argument was revolutionary in its sequence from thought to reality. It was an argument that did not require any corresponding experiment in reality; it functioned without the necessity of empirical data. Despite flaws and problems found in some ontological arguments and the objections raised to those arguments, ontological arguments still provide a phenomenal vehicle for ontological discussion through St. Anselm’s original ideas and argument, objections raised, and revisions of previous arguments. The ontological argument still intrigues philosophers despite potential objections and flaws found in it.
There is perhaps no idea in the history of western ontology with a more powerful legacy than Aristotle’s conception of ousia. Traditionally construed, "ousia" stands for the primary, foundational principle of being. It can be said that ontology has historically been ousiology – the search for ultimate foundations. In this quest for ultimates, the ousia names the absolute arche, the foundational principle that reigns over and orders all being. The political tone of this formulation is intentional; it is designed to frame the ontological question concerning the meaning of ousia in ethico-political terms. The impetus behind this strategy is to suggest that western ontology has been largely determined by an authoritarian tendency that seeks to establish a single ultimate principle in order to secure a firm and certain foundation. On the one hand, this authoritarian tendency may be traced back to Aristotle, for ousia is precisely such a hegemonic principle; on the other hand, Aristotle also suggests another conception of ousia, one that can be drawn upon in the attempt to resist this authoritarian tendency. In what follows, I trace both the authoritarian and this resistant conception ousia in Aristotle.
Epistemology can be defined as the study of knowledge. It asks questions like, “What is knowledge?”, “Why is knowledge important?”, and “How do people gain knowledge?”. Through a lot of determination in searching for answers to these questions, epistemologists discovered that there is a lot of disagreement on such questions. Therefore, epistemologists categorized these answers in groups based on beliefs that they have about where knowledge comes from and what the limit of knowledge is. The main groups epistemologists formed are: rationalism, empiricism, and constructivism. In my opinion, the Kantian constructivism has the strongest view.
The quest for knowledge, a topic often contemplated in philosophy, remains persistent with mankind seeking to understand the uncertainty in the world surrounding him. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that raises questions and provides answers about what constitutes knowledge and justifies belief. The main concerns of knowledge in epistemology are how it is defined, what the source is, how it’s acquired, what its limitations are, and what kind of knowledge is necessary. Three very well known philosophers of their time offer their different ideas on the subject of knowledge and epistemology.
Theology and science tend to go hand in hand in epistemological philosophy. The process of scientific inquiry in itself is epistemology. Studying religion and the ideas of God also directly relate to the study of knowledge and opinion. How much can be known about God? Is there evidence to rectify the existence of such an all-powerful being? If so, what would count? These questions have quickly become the epitome of my educational journey and are what I have been struggling to decipher. However, through exploration of this course and its included texts, I have reached an understanding; science and religion are not only compatible, but also mutually exclusive. Each idea substantiates the other and gives rise to the other, and for this reason
In conclusion, the initiation in philosophy of methodological scepticism will constitute, after Descartes, becoming the obsessive theme of reflection of modern philosophy. Descartes’ mediations are the ones which expose the results of metaphysics based on principles. For the building of this philosophy those principles must be absolute certain. Descartes realises this and doubts all his previous knowledge, not to reach a sceptical conclusion but to find absolute certain elements beyond doubt, allowing him to find the foundation on which he can build the rest of his thinking.
The Aims and objectives of educational research can be to “improve practice”, which may be suggestions that arise from current research. It can also help “add knowledge” which may be adding information to existing knowledge or adding to other research projects. Research can “address gaps in knowledge”, this means highlighting areas absent or which lack from other research projects. Educational research can also “expand knowledge”, this can be finding out new information or improving, existing knowledge, this knowledge can also be “replicated”, repeating previous research to certify it. Finally educational research can “add voices of individuals to knowledge”, this is important to gain the views and opinions of people within a research area in order to “understand issues within their own concept” (Creswell 2002, in Chaudhary 2013, p.2).
In conclusion conceptual relativism sets out to explain the world in term of the human mind to construct realities, and is concerned with truth and knowledge and radical Social constructionism is concerned with the idea that a variety of phenomena’s are socially constructed. This is then linked with the idea of radical anti-realism in relation to reality and the validity of science. Both are definitely problematic for any claim that the social sciences produce reliable knowledge for if knowledge is only meaningful to one group how can that have the same meanings to another group each individual sees the world through their own glasses so each and every individual holds a different opinion and no one opinion can be correct. How can any methods of research be correct if there is no real truth?
Truth is essentially divided into two main types of truth. There is empirical truth that is what is observed, what can be tangibly learned from observation. For an example we look at, Starbucks makes coffee and other hot beverages. This is a form of empirical truth, which is what is observed. Other than the empirical truth, there is truth. Truth is defined by us, by our beliefs, experiences, observations. This is the problem that there is with the nature of truth, because our experiences, and beliefs may differ from someone else giving them different truth. There are several theories on truth, and they are the Correspondence Theory, the Semantic Theory, the Deflationary Theory, the Coherence Theory, and the Pragmatic Theory. In this paper, we will be focusing on the Correspondence Theory and the Coherence Theory ( insert citation, IEP website).
2.Ontology and Epistemology are probably the most complex terms that one might come across while studying philosophy. Ontology and Epistemology are branches of philosophy. Let us try and simplify these complex topics. The word ontology is derived from the Greek words ‘ontos’ which means being and
First a person must decide and realize where their beliefs lie. Also it is important to understand what both Ontology and Epistemology mean. According to Hatch (2013), ontology is defined as a “branch of philosophy that studies assumptions about existence and definitions of reality” (p.11). While this quote allows one to know the definition of ontology, it does not delve
Research philosophy, refers to the development of knowledge adopted by the researchers in their research (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). In other words, it is the theory that used to direct the researcher for conducting the procedure of research design, research strategy, questionnaire design and sampling (Malhotra, 2009). It is very important to have a clear understanding of the research philosophy so that we could examine the assumptions about the way we view the world, which are contained in the research philosophy we choose, knowing that whether they are appropriate or not (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), three major ways of thinking about research philosophy are examined: ontology, epistemology and axiology. Each of them carries significant differences which will have an impact on the way we consider the research procedures. Ontology, “is concerned with nature of reality”, while epistemology “concerns what constitutes acceptable knowledge in a field of study and axiology “studies judgements about value” (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009, p110, p112, p116). This study is intent on creating some “facts” from objective evaluations which are made by the subjects. Therefore, epistemology will be chosen for this study as the way of thinking about the research philosophy.
To provide solutions to philosophical problems such as, how world process was created, man must be in possession of rational, intuition, and intuitive knowledge. Rational knowledge is human reasoning and requires verification. The ability of man to reason while giving logical step by step demonstration and arguments is referred to as human knowledge and it has a rational source. According to Carriero and Broughton (2011), genuine rational knowledge is provided by clear and separate knowledge of wholesome intellect with sense deliverances interaction. Sen (1996) considers rational knowledge as the knowledge of change in states of specific entities, in the sense that human experience is a confirmation of change. What are its classes, provisions and philosophical problem associated with rational knowledge? The paper seeks to examine rational knowledge by addressing the above three issues.